30. (1) Service to classify each inmate - The Service shall assign a security classification of maximum, medium or minimum to each inmate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(z.6).

       (2) Service to give reasons- The Service shall give each inmate reasons, in writing, for assigning a particular security classification or for changing that classification.

Corresponding Regulations: Sections 17-18 Security

    Editorial Note - This section of the Act and sections of the Regulations should be considered in conjunction with previous sections 28-29 of the Act and s11–16 of the Regulations annotated above.

    This section merely sets out the overall framework of security classification, namely minimum, medium or maximum, subject to the factors setout in s17 that they must take into account and according to the further criteria set out in the Regulation 18, that spell out the further basic categories of institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to the public in the event of an escape. Note that one has to be rated a “low” risk in all three categories to achieve a “minimum” classification.

    Regard must also be had to the previous sections 28 and 29 and the cases referred to there. Note that s29 the “transfer” power, is expressly made subject to s28 and the Regulations and it follows that s30 is also informed by and subject to s28 factors Practically, the information gathered pursuant to s17 of the regulations, is categorized under s18 of the regulations and then the broader category determined under s30 of the Act. Then the s28 criteria or factors are to be applied and taken into account before a transfer takes place under s29, and if one does, it must be at least in accordance with the process set out in the regulations s11 to 16.

Murray v. Canada (Correctional Service) - (1995), 101 F.T.R. 84, [1995] F.C.J. No.1225 (F.C.T.D.)

- In reviewing the statutory scheme, particularly sections 28 and 30 of the CCRA and section 18 of the Regulations, the Court held that the SHUs are necessary to provide for the protection of the public which includes staff and other inmates. The existence of the SHU is legal.

Légère v. Canada - (1997), 133 F.T.R. 77, [1997] F.C.J. No.749 (F.C.T.D.)

- It is important to stress that the fact that subsection 30(1) of the Act only prescribes three security classifications in no way precludes the existence nor impugns the legality of enhanced security facilities such as the SHU. This fact was recently confirmed in Murray v. Canada (Correctional Service, SHU National Review Board Committee), [1996] 1 F.C. 247 (F.C.T.D.).

Dorscheid v. Kent Institution - 39 W.C.B. (2d) 300, [1998] B.C.J. No.1866 (B.C.S.C.), 1998 CanLII 4576 (BC S.C.)

- The procedural rights guaranteed to an inmate by the Act or Regulations upon a security reclassification are more sparse than for an involuntary transfer. Those rights include a right to receive written reasons for the decision on reclassification pursuant to s30(2), and a right to disclosure of the information considered in the taking of the decision after the decision has been taken pursuant to s27(2) subject to s27(3). In contrast to an involuntary transfer, neither the Act nor the Regulations contain any right for the inmate to make representations prior to a decision on security reclassification. This also means that s27(1) of the Act has no application to a decision on security reclassification, and an inmate has no statutory right to a hearing prior to a decision on security reclassification. If any such right exists, it must arise either at common law or from the Charter.

Pitre v. Canada (Attorney General) - (1999), 160 F.T.R. 42, 255 N.R.369, [1999] F.C.J. No. 143 (F.C.T.D.)

- The French version of s18 of the Regulations differs from the English version. According to the English version, in order to be classified as minimum security, an inmate must meet the dual requirements of paragraphs 18(c)(i) and (ii) because Parliament used the word “and.” The French version, by using the word “soit” [or], requires that an inmate meet just one of the criteria set out in s18(c) to be classified as minimum security. The two versions are irreconcilable and the Court held that Parliament’s intent is better conveyed by the English text. The foremost goal of the CSC is to protect the public. It is therefore reasonable that an inmate meet the greatest number of criteria possible in order to be classified as minimum security, and that his classification be raised a soon as he no longer lives up to one of those criteria.

St-Amand v. Canada (Attorney General) - (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 48 (Que.C.A.) (French version)

- In the case of assignment or change of the security classification, Parliament did not provide for the inmate having the opportunity to present his observations prior to the decision. The very nature of a prison institution requires officers to make “on the spot” decisions and judicial review should therefore be exercised with restraint. The fact that a decision, due to its nature or its urgency, may be taken without notice and without prior hearing does not mean that there necessarily has been a failure to grant a fair hearing. While the decision-maker who confirmed the transfer did not have the power to change S’s security classification, a decision that the transfer was unjust would have necessarily required a reassessment of the security classification.