100. Purpose of conditional release - The purpose of conditional release is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by means of decisions on the timing and conditions of release that will best facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.

101. Principles guiding parole boards - The principles that shall guide the Board and the provincial parole boards in achieving the purpose of conditional release are

that the protection of society be the paramount consideration in the determination of any case;

that parole boards take into consideration all available information that is relevant to a case, including the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, any other information from the trial or the sentencing hearing, information and assessments provided by correctional authorities, and information obtained from victims and the offender;

that parole boards enhance their effectiveness and openness through the timely exchange of relevant information with other components of the criminal justice system and through communication of their policies and programs to offenders, victims and the general public;

that parole boards make the least restrictive determination consistent with the protection of society;

that parole boards adopt and be guided by appropriate policies and that their members by provided with the training necessary to implement those policies; and

that offenders be provided with relevant information, reasons for decisions and access to the review of decisions in order to ensure a fair and understandable conditional release process.

Perron v NPB - (1982) 9 WCB 213 FCTD

- The applicant is seeking an order to quash NPB decision denying day parole, and seeking mandamus to transfer institutions and change security from maximum to medium. The applicant had shown readiness for day parole when charged with an institutional offence and later acquitted. The NPB decision relied on Commissioner of Penitentiaries conclusions, and it is alleged that the NPB is therefore using unduly fettered discretion. The Court found that it is appropriate to rely of Commissioner's conclusions to determine if an inmate is a security risk. The Board does not have an obligation to investigate inmates circumstances independently.

MacInnis v Canada (A.G.) - (1986), 4 FTR 211 (FCTD)

- The applicant is seeking an order to quash NPB decision denying ETA's, day parole and full parole. The applicant had "dangerous sexual offender" designation and an indeterminate sentence. Decision of NPB upheld, refusing parole on the grounds that release would depreciate seriousness of crime. The reasoning falls within the Board's duty to review, under s761(1) of the Criminal Code, "the conditions, history and circumstances of that person".

R. v Brown - (1993), 83 CCC (3d) 394, 31 B.C.A.C. 59, 50 W.A.C. 59, (B.C.C.A.)

- This was an appeal from a sentence to life with an order for no parole eligibility for fourteen years. The accused plead guilty to second degree murder of his wife, in an attempted murder/suicide with the children present. Other significant facts included the level of remorse and the Aboriginal status of the appellant, with a history of alcohol involvement in the family. The Court considered principles of sentencing according to the Criminal Code and to the common law, the scope of judicial discretion, and the circumstances of the offender and of the offence. Finding no circumstances to warrant an order for parole ineligibility beyond the ten year minimum, they allowed the appeal and reduced the period of ineligibility to ten years.

R. v McKenna - (1994) 151 N.B.R. (2d) 236 (C.A.)

- The Court does not have jurisdiction to order that a sentence for contempt be served without parole or without time off for good behaviour.

R. v Shropshire - [1995] 4 SCR 227 (SCC)

- The accused plead guilty to second degree murder. The offence occurred during a marijuana transaction. The accused shot the deceased 3 times without warning and turned himself in 2 days later. He showed remorse but gave no explanation for the shooting. The trial judge sentenced him to life without parole eligibility for twelve years. The Court of Appeal reduced the period of ineligibility to the statutory minimum, ten years. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's order. Factors under s744 of the Criminal Code were considered and the Court found that the trial judge had exercised discretion correctly due to the random nature of the offence with no explanation provided. The right to silence was found to have lesser importance after a conviction than at the prosecution stage of the proceedings. The Court found that it was too high a standard to only justify extending the period of ineligibility for parole beyond the statutory minimum under "unusual circumstances". Trial judges must be free to exercise discretion, and permitting them to extend the period of ineligibility does not impinge on the function of the parole board.

Fehr v Canada (NPB) - (1995) 93 FTR 161 (Fed. T.D.)

- On application for judicial review, the Court declined to interfere with the Board's denial of day and full parole. The applicant was convicted to second degree murder, released on day parole, then full parole and subsequently convicted of impaired driving causing death and leaving the scene of an accident. Sentenced to six years concurrent, she was released on day parole again but suspended following two breaches of the condition not to consume alcohol, one confessed. The Board denied the application for full or day parole. The applicant argued that the Board had failed to act reasonably and that political and public pressures prejudiced the applicant at the parole hearing. The Board considered statements from the victim's family and granted status for a representative from Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Violence to be present at the hearing. The Court found that the Board met all legislative requirements, and was presumed to be impartial. The applicant alleged infringement of Charter rights under ss 7 and s9, but the application was dismissed.

Mooring v Canada (NPB) - [1996] 1 SCR 75, 104 CCC (3d) 97

- The appellant was released on mandatory supervision. He was then arrested and charged after police responded to a call, searched the vehicle he was found in with another person, and found evidence to support a charge. Proceedings were subsequently stayed because the search was found to be in violation of the Charter . The NPB revoked his parole and the appeal division affirmed that decision. The B.C. Supreme Court dismissed the application for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeal quashed the NPB decision, finding that the NPB has jurisdiction to exclude evidence where there is a Charter violation. The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that the NPB is not a court of competent jurisdiction to exclude evidence under s24(2) of the Charter. They found that the function of the NPB is to assess risk for the protection of society and that the assessment is based on all available information , as stated in the CCRA s101(b), and that the function of the NPB is not to assess evidence or to perform a s24(2) analysis. The dissent found the NPB as a court of competent jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy and to apply exclusionary principles within the flexibility of a s24(2) analysis.

Zarzour v Canada - (1999) 44 WCB (2d) 43, (FCTD), (2000), 153 C.C.C. (3d) 284, 268 N.R. 235 196 F.T.R. 320

- In an action against the Crown, the trial judge found that the CSC and the NPB had unlawfully provided information about an inmate to his ex-wife, who was not a "victim" under s142(3) of the CCRA.The ex-wife provided letters to the NPB that became part of the file relied upon when considering release plans. The argument invoked Charter rights, claiming infringement of the right to liberty and protection against unusual treatment and the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. Damages were awarded and documents written by the ex-wife were deleted from the inmates file. This decision was overturned in part by the FCA who found that, although unlawful, the provision of information to the ex-wife had minimal effect on the inmate. Leave to appeal to SCC refused.

102. Criteria for granting parole - The Board or a provincial parole board may grant parole to an offender if, in its opinion,

the offender will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society before the expiration according to law of the sentence the offender is serving; and

the release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen.

[1992, c. 20, s. 102; 1995, c. 42, s. 27(F). ]