Date: 19990126
Docket: T-367-98
OTTAWA, Ontario, the 26th day of January 1999
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
Between:
MICHEL PITRE
Applicant
And:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
JUDGMENT
ROULEAU J.
[1] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19990126
Docket: T-367-98
Between:
MICHEL PITRE
Applicant
And:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ROULEAU J.
1 This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated February 9, 1998, by the warden of the Correctional Service of Canada's Regional Reception Centre. The warden approved the applicant's transfer to Archambault Institution, a medium-security institution. The applicant was previously confined in a minimum-security institution.
2 That decision was based on a notice of recommendation of involuntary transfer dated January 20, 1998. In that notice, the manager of the unit where the applicant was confined stated that the probability of the applicant's escape had increased and that as a result, the applicant could no longer be adequately supervised in an institution providing minimal supervision. The manager issued her notice on the strength of four reports from three different sources.
3 The first report, dated January 4, 1998, says that the applicant intended to escape in order to pull off "a big job".
4 A report dated January 5, 1998, mentions that the applicant intended to escape and pull off "a big job" in which three other individuals were to participate, two of whom were in prison at the time.
5 A third report states that the applicant had asked his wife to pick him up in the institution's parking lot. She refused for fear of being identified as an accomplice in an escape.
6 Finally, the last report identifies the applicant as having participated in a conspiracy to escape. A soon-to-be-released inmate was to come for him after regular visiting hours.
7 On receipt of the notice of recommendation, the Service reassessed the applicant's security classification. In addition to the reports, it was noted that the applicant had been unlawfully at large on two occasions, in 1980 and 1984. He also escaped in 1990 while on escorted temporary absence; he remained at large for 79 days and then returned to the penitentiary of his own accord. The Service acknowledges that the applicant is not a violent man, all of his offences being property crime. In light of that information, the Service raised the applicant's security classification from minimum security to medium security and transferred him to a medium-security institution. The probability of the applicant's escape was no longer acceptable in a minimum-security institution.
8 The applicant challenges the transfer, arguing that it is unfounded in law. The relevant provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, read:
| 4. The principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the purpose referred to in section 3 are
(a) that the protection of society be the paramount consideration in the corrections process;
28. Where a person is, or is to be, confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which the person is confined is one that provides the least restrictive environment for that person, taking into account
(a) the degree and kind of custody and control necessary for (i) the safety of the public, (ii) the safety of that person and other persons in the penitentiary, and (iii) the security of the penitentiary;
30.(1) The Service shall assign a security classification of maximum, medium or minimum to each inmate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(z.6).
(2) The Service shall give each inmate reasons, in writing, for assigning a particular security classification or for changing that classification. |
|
| 4. Le Service est guidé, dans l'exécution de ce mandat, par les principes qui suivent :
a) la protection de la société est le critère prépondérant lors de l'application du processus correctionnel;
28. Le Service doit s'assurer, dans la mesure du possible, que le pénitencier dans lequel est incarcéré le détenu constitue le milieu le moins restrictif possible, compte tenu des éléments suivants :
a) le degré de garde et de surveillance nécessaire à la sécurité du public, à celle du pénitencier, des personnes qui s'y trouvent et du détenu;
30.(1) Le Service assigne une cote de sécurité selon les catégories dites maximale, moyenne et minimale à chaque détenu conformément aux règlements d'application de l'alinéa 96z.6).
(2) Le Service doit donner, par écrit, à chaque détenu les motifs à l'appui de l'assignation d'une cote de sécurité ou du changement de celle-ci. |
|
|
|
|
9 The Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, provide:
| 17. The Service shall take the following factors into consideration in determining the security classification to be assigned to an inmate pursuant to section 30 of the Act:
(a) the seriousness of the offence committed by the inmate; (b) any outstanding charges against the inmate; (c) the inmate's performance and behaviour while under sentence; (d) the inmate's social, criminal and, where available, young-offender
history;
(e) any physical or mental illness or disorder suffered by the inmate; (f) the inmate's potential for violent behaviour; and (g) the inmate's continued involvement in criminal activities.
18. For the purpose of section 30 of the Act, an inmate shall be classified as
(a) maximum security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as
(i) presenting a high probability of escape and a high risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape, or
(ii) requiring a high degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary;
(b) medium security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as
(i) presenting a low to moderate probability of escape and a moderate risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape, or (ii) requiring a moderate degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary; and
(c) minimum security where the inmate is assessed by the Service as
(i) presenting a low probability of escape and a low risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape, and
(ii) requiring a low degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary. |
|
| 17. Le Service détermine la cote de sécurité à assigner à chaque détenu conformément à l'article 30 de la Loi en tenant compte des facteurs suivants :
a) la gravité de l'infraction commise par le détenu; b) toute accusation en instance contre lui; c) son rendement et sa conduite pendant qu'il purge sa peine; d) ses antécédents sociaux et criminels, y compris ses antécédents
comme jeune contrevenant s'ils sont disponibles; e) toute maladie physique ou mentale ou tout trouble mental dont il souffre; f) sa propension à la violence;
g) son implication continue dans des activités criminelles.
18. Pour l'application de l'article 30 de la Loi, le détenu reçoit, selon le cas :
a) la cote de sécurité maximale, si l'évaluation du Service montre que le détenu : (i) soit présente un risque élevé d'évasion et, en cas d'évasion, constituerait une grande menace pour la sécurité du public, (ii) soit exige un degré élevé de surveillance et de contrôle à l'intérieur du pénitencier;
b) la cote de sécurité moyenne, si l'évaluation du Service montre que le détenu : (i) soit présente un risque d'évasion de faible à moyen et, en cas d'évasion, constituerait une menace moyenne pour la sécurité du public, (ii) soit exige un degré moyen de surveillance et de contrôle à l'intérieur du pénitencier;
c) la cote de sécurité minimale, si l'évaluation du Service montre que le détenu : (i) soit présente un faible risque d'évasion et, en cas d'évasion, constituerait une faible menace pour la sécurité du public, (ii) soit exige un faible degré de surveillance et de contrôle à l'intérieur du pénitencier; |
|
|
|
|
10 The French version of section 18 of the Regulations differs from the English version. According to the English version, in order to be classified as minimum security, an inmate must meet the dual requirements of paragraphs 18(c)(i) and (ii) because Parliament used the word "and". The French version, by using the word "soit" [or], requires that an inmate meet just one of the criteria set out in subsection 18(c) to be classified as minimum security.
11 The two versions are irreconcilable. In my opinion, Parliament's intent is better conveyed by the English text. The foremost goal of the Service is to protect the public. It is therefore reasonable that an inmate meet the greatest number of criteria possible in order to be classified as minimum security, and that this classification be raised as soon as he no longer lives up to one of those criteria. This interpretation would explain the use of the word "or" between the criteria set out for medium and maximum classifications, each criterion representing a violation of one of the two requirements for minimum classification.
12 This settled, I have yet to consider which classification should be assigned to the applicant. The content of the reports and their reliability are not in dispute. They show that the applicant is actively seeking to escape, with the intention of planning a big job. It is clear that the applicant presents more than a low probability of escape, and his intention to reoffend shows that there is a moderate risk to the safety of the public. For these very reasons, the applicant requires a moderate degree of supervision and control within the penitentiary.
13 The application for judicial review is dismissed.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 26, 1999
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: T-367-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHEL PITRE v. AGC
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 24, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ROULEAU J.
DATED: January 26, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Annick Trépanier
for the applicant
Éric Lafrenière
for the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Annick Trépanier
Montréal, Quebec
for the applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
for the respondent