76. Programs for offenders generally - The Service shall provide a range of programs designed to address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community.

77. Programs for female offenders - Without limiting the generality of section 76, the Service shall

provide programs designed particularly to address the needs of female offenders; and

consult regularly about programs for female offenders with

appropriate women's groups, and

other appropriate persons and groups

with expertise on, and experience in working with, female offenders.

78. (1) Payments to offenders - For the purpose of

encouraging offenders to participate in programs provided by the Service, or

providing financial assistance to offenders to facilitate their reintegration into the community,

the Commissioner may authorize payments to offenders at rates approved by the Treasury Board.

       (2) Deductions - Where an offender receives a payment referred to in subsection (1) or income from a prescribed source, the Service may

make deductions from that payment or income in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 96(z.2) and any Commissioner's Directive; and

require that the offender pay to Her Majesty in right of Canada, in accordance with regulations made pursuant to paragraph 96(z.2.1) and as set out in a Commissioner's Directive, an amount, not exceeding thirty per cent of the gross payment referred to in subsection (1) or gross income, for reimbursement of the costs of the offender's food and accommodation incurred while the offender was receiving that income or payment, or for reimbursement of the costs of work-related clothing provided to the offender by the Service.

[1992, c. 20, s. 78; 1995, c. 42, s. 20. ]

William Head Institution Inmate Committee v. Canada (Corrections Service) - (1993), 17 Admin.L.R. (2d) 266, 24 C.R. (4th) 399, 66 F.T.R. 262, [1993] F.C.J. No.821 (F.C.T.D.)

- The CSC ordered the applicant institution to terminate university programs offered to inmates. The applicant argued that the decision to terminate was in violation of the mandatory obligation to provide courses under section 76 of the Act. The court refused to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the CSC to maintain a specific university program at the institution. As meritorious as the university program may be, the statute did not mandate its specific continuance. As long as a range of programs remained, the CSC was free to decide to terminate one program, such as the university program, as long as it was done in compliance with section 74. There was no legal obligation on the CSC to provide or maintain specific programs, and in particular, the university program at William Head Institution. There was, therefore, no basis for a writ of mandamus.

Kuipers v. Canada - (1994), 74 F.T.R. 306, [1994] F.C.J. No.434 (F.C.T.D.)

- This was an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the CSC from terminating the applicant inmate from his employment in an apprenticeship training program at a correctional facility by reason of his refusal to voluntarily participate in a sex offender treatment program. The inmate was assessed as requiring several programs prior to his release, one of which was sex offender treatment. A transfer to another facility would have been necessary to facilitate his participation in the sex offender program. This meant it would have been impossible to continue the employment program. Although the inmate had received a high performance rating for his work in the employment program, the court denied his application. In applying the tripartite test for interlocutory injunctions, the court dismissed the application. Although there was a serious issue to be tried, the court was not satisfied that the inmate had met the onus on him to establish that, if the injunction herein sought were not granted, he would suffer irreparable harm not compensable in damages. While it was true that sex offender programming might also be available within the community, the CSC would have no authority following warrant expiry to assure that such programming was undertaken and successfully completed. It was reasonable to assume that the inmate was more likely to pursue programming in the community that represented his priority than he was to pursue programming that represented the CSC's priority. Thus then, the court was not satisfied that the inmate, having failed to present any evidence that he could not complete his apprenticeship training in the community following his release, had established a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm to meet the second element of the test. Moreover, the court concluded that it was apparent that the public interest concern in the balance of convenience test, on the facts before me, favoured priority being given to sex offender treatment programming for the inmate.

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) - (1995), 132 D.L.R. (4th) 136, 106 F.T.R. 241, [1996] 1 F.C. 857, [1995] F.C.J. No.1735 (F.C.T.D.)

- Paragraph 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibited all prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more in a correctional institution from voting at a federal election, contravened section 3 of the Charter. Citing section 76 of the CCRA, the court was of the view that corrections policy emphasizes the rehabilitation of the offender, and his reintegration into the community. While the defendants argue that disenfranchisement can contribute to rehabilitation, the court preferred the plaintiffs' evidence suggesting that paragraph 51(e) of the CEA hindered the rehabilitation of offenders and their successful reintegration into the community. The provision only served to further alienate prisoners from the community to which they must return, and in which their families live.

R v. Williston - (1999), 209 N.B.R. (2d) 270, 530 A.P.R. 270, [1999] N.B.J. No.85 (N.B.C.A.)

- The court viewed section 76 of the CCRA as one of the powers invested in officials of the CCRA which provide for a considered and weighted inspection and examination of an inmate's rehabilitation prospect and his or her restoration in society. Here, an inmate was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment for manslaughter and 18 months concurrent for the aggravated assault. Pursuant to section 743.6 of the Criminal Code, the offender was required to serve one half of the term of imprisonment before being eligible to apply for parole. The trial judge imposed the order under section 743.6 in part so that the offender would remain in the federal correctional system for enough time to allow him to obtain counselling. In dismissing the appeal, the court was of the view that by section 743.6 (1) of the Criminal Code, Parliament decreed that in certain circumstances a judge may supersede and suspend the powers granted in the CCRA stating the criteria to be considered. Section 743.6(1) ought not to be invoked for the purpose of increasing the penalty or the sentence. The length and extent of the sentence has already been decided. It is the seriousness of the crime and the personality of the offender which need to be addressed in light of societal exigency.