Visiting and Correspondence

Editorial Note - Subsequent to the application to Federal Court in relation to Ms Culhane's access to federal penitentiaries, she was similarly barred from visiting provincial institutions. Her application for judicial review of that decision is reported at (1979) 44 CCC (2d) 245 and the appeal from that decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal is reported at (1980) 51 CCC (2d) 213. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was launched but apparently later abandoned. Ultimately Ms Culhane, by negotiation, was able to resecure her visiting privileges at federal and provincial institutions.

27. The visiting and correspondence privileges that may, in accordance with directives, be permitted to inmates shall be such as are, in all the circumstances, calculated to assist in the reformation and rehabilitation of the inmate.

*Judicial Consideration* -

Re Culhane's Visiting Privileges - Unreported, October 6, 1977, FCTD No. T-2168-77
	- There is no statutory right, specifically permitting a member of the public to visit an institution and its inmates. If there are any vested rights or "privileges" expressed or implied in the legislation in respect of visiting those privileges are those of the individual inmates and not those of members of the public at large. A decision, on security grounds, directing that a certain member or members of the public shall not be permitted to visit a prison, or inmates in it is an administrative decision which by its very nature does not require the so-called notice of the matters charged or alleged nor the right to a so-called hearing. Nor does it warrant interference by a court by way of certiorari or other prohibitive remedy where it is merely asserted the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable or unfair.

Olson v The Queen - Unreported, November 15, 1990, No. T-2603-89 (FCTD) (Butter- worths No. 35008)
	- The applicant challenged the institutional telephone policy which allowed inmates to make two "legal or business" calls per week, two resocialization calls per month and emergency calls. Calls could be made on a collect basis only. In addition, he challenged specific restrictions on himself which prohibited him from making "legal" phone calls for a month when he was found to have abused the privilege by pretending to call a lawyer when, in fact, he was not. The applicant had made extensive use of the telephone policy and was involved in 19 civil court actions.
	The court, following Re Latham and Solicitor General of Canada et al (1984) 9 DlR (4th) 393 (FCTD) (see annotation at p5135) held that s10(b) did not apply to the applicant's situation. The court further noted that the calls that the applicant wished to make did not relate to the situation such as internal disciplinary charges or possible further loss of residual liberty within the institution. Furthermore, there was no evidence before the court that the restrictions resulted in any prejudice to the applicant. There is no Charter right allowing penitentiary inmates to telephone their lawyers in an unrestricted fashion. The principles of fundamental justice in s7 of the Charter do not require unlimited access to the telephone by penitentiary inmates. While prisoners do not lose all of their civil rights upon incarceration, it is clear that many restrictions necessarily arise upon incarceration, including restrictions on a prisoner's freedom of expression, freedom of association and liberty.

Editorial Note - Subsequent to the application to Federal Court in relation to Ms Culhane's access to federal penitentiaries, she was similarly barred from visiting provincial institutions. Her application for judicial review of that decision is reported at (1979) 44 CCC (2d) 245 and the appeal from that decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal is reported at (1980) 51 CCC (2d) 213. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was launched but apparently later abandoned. Ultimately Ms Culhane, by negotiation, was able to resecure her visiting privileges at federal and provincial institutions.

Bryntwick v Yoemans and Rousseau - (1983) 1 CCC (3d) 131, 31 CR (3d) 177 (FCTD)
	- A prisoner's visiting rights with his common-law wife were suspended indefinitely because she refused to be subjected to a nude search. Because there were no grounds to support the search within the meaning of Regulation 41 (2) and because the duty to act fairly was not complied with in relation to the visiting rights, the Court ordered visiting rights restored.

Beaulieu v Rousseau - Unreported, December 14,1987, Nos. T-2080-86 & T-2081-86 (FCTD)
	- Punishment in disciplinary court followed by loss of earned remission, private family visits, or escorted temporary absence passes does not raise the sort of double jeopardy situation that infringes s11 (h) of the Charter.
TOP