Food and Clothing

Editorial Note - The Court adds that if the prisoner had access to counsel in advance, there may have been better communication between the parties and this matter may have been resolved without the need for the court to be involved.

15. (1) Every inmate shall be
(a)	adequately fed and clothed, according to the requirements of the season and the nature of his employment, and
(b)	provided with adequate bedding.
(2) No inmate shall be required to wear clothing that, by its nature, is calculated to subject him to ridicule or contempt from other persons.
(3) Where an inmate is in receipt of wages from employment or pay under section 36, he may be required, in accordance with the directives, to reimburse the Crown for the whole or any part of the cost of providing him with lodging, food and clothing for any day during which he is in receipt of such wages or pay, but the amount of reimbursement shall not exceed 25 per cent of his gross earnings. [SOR/81-322]

*Judicial Consideration* -

Allan v Commissioner of Corrections (Can) - Unreported, September 25, 1990, No. T -842-89 (FCTD) (Butterworths No. 34692)
	- The applicant, who participates regularly in a program of exercise involving institutionally supplied equipment, applied to the institution for new running shoes. The prisoner had a medical requirement for special orthopedic footwear. He indicated he sent numerous requests to the institution asking to be supplied with these shoes and, alternatively, requested money from his current account to pay for the shoes himself. He felt the clothing issued to inmates was inadequate for recreational purposes in that they posed a threat to safety and health and were embarrassing to the prisoners. The institution had no record of the requests ever being submitted for their consideration and the prisoner's copies of the requests were not signed by anyone from the institution. The Court held that there is a duty in this case on the institution to supply some form of proper recreational footwear. However, it was not clear that the duty was unfulfilled because the regulations do not precisely define the extent of the duty. Also, it was not clear that the institution refused to comply due to the lack of evidence confirming that the requests were received by the institution. Accordingly, the order of mandamus compelling the institution to supply the footwear was not granted.

Editorial Note - The Court adds that if the prisoner had access to counsel in advance, there may have been better communication between the parties and this matter may have been resolved without the need for the court to be involved.
TOP