60. For the purposes of this section and sections 61 to 72,

"approved procedure" means a procedure set out in Commissioner's Directives as a procedure to be used for the analysis of a sample; (methode approuvee)

"collector" means a staff member or any other person authorized in Commissioner's Directives to collect samples on behalf of the Service; (echantillonneur)

"confirmation test" means a test of a sample by a laboratory, using an II approved procedure, to verify the positive result of an initial screening test; (analyse de confirmation)

"container" means a sterile container that is to be used to receive a sample; (contenant)

"initial screening test" means the first test of a sample, using an approved procedure, conducted by a laboratory; (analyse initiale)

"laboratory" means a laboratory authorized by Commissioner's Directives to analyse samples; (Laboratoire)

"positive", in respect of a sample, means a urinalysis test result that indicates that the level of an intoxicant in the sample is equal to or greater than the level specified in Commissioner's Directives; (positif)

"random selection" means a selection procedure set out in Commissioner's Directives that ensures that every inmate has an equal probability of being selected, on a periodic basis, to provide a sample and that has reasonable controls and safeguards designed to prevent the selection process from being influenced; (controle au hazard)

"record of substance abuse" means an inmate's record of conviction of the disciplinary offence referred to in paragraph 40(k) of the Act; (dossier de consommation de substances intoxicantes)

"sample" means a quantity of unadulterated urine sufficient to permit analysis, using an approved procedure, by a laboratory; (echantillon d'urine)

"urinalysis program coordinator" means a senior staff member who has been designated by name or position in Commissioner's Directives to co-ordinate the application of the Service's urinalysis program at the location where the program is to be carried out. (coordonnateur du programme de prises d'echanti//ons d'urine)

Trunzo v. Stony Mountain Penitentiary Disciplinary Court - (1996), 124 F.T.R.101, [1996] F.C.J. No.1500 (F.C.T.D.)

- An inmate was convicted and fined $35 by a disciplinary court for failing and refusing to provide a urine sample when demanded pursuant to section 54(a) of the CCRA. The inmate had provided only 10 millilitres of urine rather then the minimum 40 millilitres required. The inmate challenged the disciplinary court's decision, arguing that there was no requirement in the Regulations under the CCRA that a 40 millilitre sample must be given. The Federal Court did not agree, dismissed the application and awarded costs of $300 against the inmate. The Court held that the definition of "approved procedure" in section 60 of the Regulations incorporated by reference the procedures set out in the Commissioner's Directives. The CDs incorporate by reference, to the extent set out in paragraph 24 of CD 572, the Guidelines for Urinalysis Program in Institutions and in the Community. Section 36 of the Guidelines sets forth the "approximately 40 millilitres" requirement. While in themselves they may not be law, when read in conjunction with the definition of "approved procedure" in section 60 of the Regulations, it was apparent that the CDs and Guidelines have been incorporated by reference into the Regulations and are, to this extent, law. In terms of the costs awarded against the inmate, the court stressed that while the inmate had the right to seek judicial review in this case, invoking the mechanism of the judicial system for such a trivial matter was close to absurd. There was significant public expenditure involved in a judicial review application and it was quite apparent this inmate had no regard for the burden he had placed on the legal system and the Canadian taxpayer. The Court had an obligation in these circumstances to demonstrate to the inmate and to signal to potential litigants and counsel that invoking the mechanism of the judicial system for frivolous cases will not be costless. While the award of $300 in this case was relatively low, litigants and counsel should be forewarned that increased awards of costs, including costs against counsel personally, could be made in similar cases in the future.

Corresponding Act: Sections 46-67 Search and Seizure