Date: 19980824
Docket: T-1670-97
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, AUGUST 24, 1998
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON
Between:
YVES BISSON
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
MARC NADON
Judge
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Date: 19980824
Docket: T-1670-97
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, AUGUST 24, 1998
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON
Between:
YVES BISSON
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.:
[1] In his application for judicial review, the applicant is seeking to have the decision of the Regional Deputy Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada dated July 23, 1997, authorizing his transfer from the Donnacona penitentiary to the Millhaven penitentiary in Ontario, set aside.
[2] The applicant submits that the correctional service did not provide him with enough information [translation] "to prepare a relevant and intelligent defence as required by the principles of procedural fairness" before the decision to transfer him was made.
[3] The relevant facts are as follows. Since February 24, 1993, the applicant has been serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, possession of drugs and personation with intent. On July 3, 1997, while the applicant was an inmate at the Donnacona penitentiary, a maximum security institution, he received a notice of recommendation of involuntary transfer to Millhaven Institution. The notice of recommendation reads as follows:
| [translation] On 4 June 97 a serious assault on inmate Peter Laurie occurred at our institution. Information, [sic ] leads us to believe that you played a leading role in these events. Numerous reports submitted to preventive security (reference Heading no. 3 "Continuation of Criminal Activities" in the PS dated 1997.06.25) identify you as a negative leader and one of the masterminds of a network trafficking in influence, narcotics and intimidation of peers in the institution. Visitors and a member of staff are allegedly involved in these illegal activities. Our information also ties you to an assault on another inmate, Régis Roy, which occurred on 28 May of this year. Taken together, the events create a real climate of terror within the population. Action has therefore become imperative to ensure a safe and secure environment in the inmate population; this is the standpoint from which this review has been done. Your security code does not give you access to medium-security institutions. In addition, you are not identified as a protection case, and so you do not meet the criteria for Port-Cartier. The only alternative appears to be an inter-regional transfer. |
| In accordance with C.D. 540, the CMT intends to proceed with your involuntary transfer to Millhaven institution, Ontario, as soon as possible. In our view, this transfer is the least restrictive in the circumstances. |
[4] In addition to receiving the notice of recommendation, the applicant received an eight-page document entitled "Progress Summary" dated June 30, 1997. That document, which was prepared for the purposes of a transfer to Millhaven Institution, briefly recounts the inmate's history in the penitentiary and sets out the reasons why the correctional service intends to transfer him to Millhaven.
[5] Among the information in the document there are summaries of preventive security reports concerning the applicant. More specifically, the preventive security reports deal with the reasons that appear in the notice of recommendation to transfer the applicant, which I reproduced earlier.
[6] On July 23, 1997, the Regional Deputy Commissioner of the correctional service gave his approval for transferring the inmate to Millhaven Institution. This the decision that the applicant is challenging.
[7] The reasons on which the correctional service relied for transferring the applicant to Millhaven Institution are, to all intents and purposes, identical to the reasons on which the correctional service relied for transferring the applicant Cartier in file nos. T-1668-97 and T-2652-97. For the reasons I stated in those cases, I have concluded that the applicant's application for judicial review must be dismissed. In my opinion, the information provided to the applicant, that is, the information set out in the Progress Summary of June 30, 1997, was sufficient to comply with the rules of procedural fairness.
[8] A copy of my reasons in file nos. T-1668-97 and T-2652-97 will be included in the record of this case. The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.
Ottawa, Ontario MARC NADON
August 24, 1998 Judge
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO: T-1670-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: YVES BISSON v. AGC
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 30, 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF NADON J.
DATED: August 24, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Annick Trépanier FOR THE APPLICANT
Anick Pelletier 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 |