Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20010531

Docket: T-2048-00

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 565

BETWEEN:

                                                MICHEL LAVOIE

                                                                                                             Applicant

                                                         - and -

                                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

                                                                                                        Respondent

                                REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

BLAISJ.

[1]                 This is an application by the applicant for a permanent injunction allowing him to have access to a conventional telephone in accordance with the Commissioner of Corrections' Directive 084.

[2]                 I have carefully reviewed the applicant's application record as well as the respondent's application record and the reply record.

[3]                 It appears that this application is moot because the Correctional Service has responded favourably to the applicant's request to have access to a telephone.

[4]                 In that regard, I reviewed the affidavit of Robert Rousseau dated March 28, 2001, and the exhibits to that affidavit.

[5]                 It appears from the affidavit that the applicant proceeded in the usual manner by making a written request on March 15, 2001, to which he received a favourable response on March 27, 2001, as shown in Exhibit P-1 to the affidavit of Mr. Rousseau.

[6]                 If the response dated March 27, 2001, had been negative, I would understand that the applicant could have brought proceedings to have the decision changed, even though that remedy would first have had to be sought within the usual grievance procedure in the penitentiaries.

[7]                 In the case before us, the applicant chose to proceed by way of an application for an injunction, which seems excessive to me in the circumstances.

[8]                 According to established case law in similar matters, in order to succeed in a proceeding of this nature, the applicant should have met three tests: that he has a serious question to be tried, that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted, and that he establishes that the balance of convenience is in his favour.

[9]                 It is clear, on the face of the record, that the applicant does not meet any of those tests.

[10]            The application for an injunction is therefore dismissed with costs.

Pierre Blais                                          

Judge

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

May 31, 2001

Certified true translation

Sophie Debbané, LLB

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                    T-2048-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                   MICHEL LAVOIE

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

WRITTEN MOTION REVIEWED WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF BLAIS J.

DATED:                                     May 31, 2001

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

Michel Lavoie                                       ON HIS OWN BEHALF

Sébastien Gagné                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris Rosenberg                                                FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario