Zarzour v. Canada
(Attorney General)

[2000] F.C.J. No.103 (F.C.T.D.)

     Z was involuntarily transferred from a minimum to a medium security penitentiary on the grounds that he was involved in certain activities jeopardizing the safety and security of the institution. Z was suspected of conspiring with other inmates to attack a fellow inmate, and participating in the planning of an earlier theft from the canteen. In a written cross-examination a preventive security officer admitted that Z was not directly involved in the conspiracy to attack the fellow inmate. Z received both a Progress Summary Report and Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation setting out and summarizing the reasons for his transfer. At issue: Was the transfer justified considering the security officer’s admission, and was Z given adequate opportunity to learn the gist of the information on which the authorities relied upon in arriving at their conclusions?
     Rouleau J. held that in light of the security officer’s admission, the only remaining grounds supporting the conclusion that Z should be transferred rested on the theft charges. On the evidence submitted, Rouleau J. found that the Service had practically no information to suggest that Z could have been involved in the theft from the canteen in one way or another. Rouleau J. was not persuaded that the theft charges were based on anything more than suspicion and was unable to conclude that Z’s behavior jeopardized the safety and security of the institution. As such, it was doubtful whether the grounds on which the decision was based were reasonable and serious. Moreover, Rouleau J. was not persuaded that Z was provided with sufficient disclosure. The application for judicial review was allowed. In the Order, Rouleau J. directed that all accusations or charges underlying the transfer be struck from Z’s record.
TOP