BACK PREVIOUS SECTION NEXT SECTION BACK PREVIOUS SECTION NEXT SECTION | 5. (1) The institutional head is responsible for the direction of his staff, the organization, safety and security of his institution and the correctional training of all inmates confined therein. | ||
| (2) Except where otherwise provided by the Act, the institutional head may delegate to members who are the immediate subordinates of the institutional head authority to deal with all routine or minor administrative matters, but the institutional head shall give personal attention to | ||
|
(a)
|
matters of general organization and policy of the institution; | |
|
(b)
|
important matters requiring the personal attention and decision of the institutional head; and | |
|
(c)
|
the general control and supervision of the duties allocated to subordinates by the Institutional head. [SOR/88-547] | |
| Judicial Consideration - | ||
|
Dubois. v. Sauve et al - Unreported, January 20, '984, No. T-1418-83 (F.C.T.D.)
|
||
| - An application for certiorari and mandamus to Quash transfers to administrative segregation and S.H.U. and 10 compel return to previous Institution was dismissed. The applicant had been a model prisoner but was considered part of organized crime and was convicted of violent offences, namely, murder. A new policy Introduced required the classification to S.H.U. of such persons. The applicant Wit covered by Commissioner’s Directive 274 which became effective January 18th, 1983. The delegation by the Commissioner to subordinate in the circumstances was justified and clearly intended by the legislator. It Is Inconceivable that the Commissioner could examine and direct all the many transfers throughout Canada by himself. The Commissioner may delegate his power of transfer and he may exercise it himself. It is natural for his decision to be preceded by consultation and by recommendations by the persons in charge. Ss5 of the Penitentiary Service Regulations let out the power of Institutional head and include the power to delegate certain powers to subordinate. This authorization does not affect the powers of transfer conferred on the Commissioner and the director of the penitentiary. There was no error or law as the action taken was Justifiable under a Directive in force. The Issuance of Directives authorized by the Act and Regulation does not amount to a usurpation of the powers of the individuals charged with making it. Decisions are imposed upon them in the course of conduct. The power' given to the Commissioner under s.29(3) of the Penitentiary Act are general powers of the Commissioner’s which transcend the specific power given to his subordinates. There is nothing In the Act or Regulations which indicate the authorities must consider only the Inmates conduct In the penitentiary, regardless of his previous record outside. The power given to the Commissioner under CD 274 or to a director is discretionary and depend on the circumstances of each case. There is discretion to grant a hearing. Consequently, such a hearing is a privilege. The applicant had notice of his transfer, three days to submit his objections, and did respond. Therefore there was no violation of the duty to act fairly. | ||
|
TOP
| ||