Date: 20041215
Docket: T-1888-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1742
Montréal, Quebec, the 15th day of December 2004
Present: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
JEAN-CLAUDE BOUCHARD
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the applicant pursuant to Rule 312 of the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules), essentially to be able to serve and file a supplementary record. In particular, the applicant is seeking the following remedies by his motion:
[TRANSLATION]
AUTHORIZE the filing of a supplementary record by the applicant consisting of the affidavit of Jean-Claude Bouchard and Exhibits R-1 to R-16;
ORDER that a certified true copy or the original of the documents requested [sic] the federal department and which the latter has refused to file be all forwarded to the Registry;
ORDER Josée Brunelle to answer the questions asked and provide the documents requested at the cross-examination on affidavit dated February 11, 2004, the requests and objections of which appear at pages 761 to 765, 864 to 866 and 867 to 873 of the Applicant's record, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, but for greater clarity:
(1) provide the transcript of the meeting between Mr. Matteau and the applicant on February 14, 2003;
(2) answer the questions of Anne Hébert regarding the search of the applicant's dwelling unit, the seizure of the applicant's property and their disposal;
(3) provide a list of the property seized and a copy of the seizure reports;
AUTHORIZE the examination of François Matteau and Robert Paquette at the judicial review hearing.
Background
[2] On October 10, 2003, the applicant, who is at this time in prison for a serious crime committed in the late 1970s, filed an application for judicial review concerning, and I quote:
[TRANSLATION]
. . . the decision by the Correctional Service Canada Commissioner at the applicant's third grievance level, dated August 25, 2003, and bearing No. V-30A00010878, justifying:
(A) pursuant to sections 28 and subsection 31(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the involuntary administrative segregation of the applicant from February 21, 2003, to May 2, 2003;
(B) pursuant to Standard Operating Practices 700-14, Security Classification of Offenders, the raising of the security rating from low to medium; and
(C) pursuant to sections 17 and 18 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, the involuntary transfer of the applicant on May 2, 2003, from the Ste-Anne des Plaines Institution, a low security institution, to the Cowansville Institution, a medium security institution.
The applicant learned of the decision for the first time at 5:00 p.m. on September 10, 2003.
[3] It is therefore noted that the decision of August 25, 2003, includes three decisions by Correctional Service Canada, and in particular the management of the Ste-Anne des Plaines Institution (the prison authorities).
[4] The first of those decisions, to place the applicant in involuntary administrative segregation, was made on February 21, 2003. The duration of that segregation was from February 21 to May 2, 2003. It is clear that during that period, on or about March 18, 2003, the prison authorities proceeded to make a seizure of property in the applicant's usual cell. The applicant was apparently given a minor offence report at that time for possession of unauthorized property.
[5] The second decision, regarding the raising of the applicant's security rating, was made on April 24, 2003, and based inter alia on the minor offence report discussed in the preceding paragraph. (At the hearing of the motion, it was not clearly established by either party whether this offence report played a part in raising the applicant's security rating.)
[6] The third decision concerned the involuntary transfer of the applicant and was apparently made on April 24, 2003, but given effect on May 2, 2003, at the end of the applicant's 70 days of segregation.
[7] Through these three decisions, the decision of August 25, 2003, which includes them therefore covers a period from at the very least February 21 to May 2, 2003 (according to counsel for the applicant, the period covered by the decision of August 25, 2003, would really be from February 21 to July 2003).
[8] In his application for judicial review, the applicant asked not only that the decision of August 25, 2003, be quashed, but also that there be [TRANSLATION] "an order placing the parties in the position in which they were prior to February 21, 2003, and striking out in the reports prepared by the respondent the references to involuntary segregation, the raising of the security rating and the involuntary transfer of the applicant on May 2, 2003, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 18.1(3)(a) of the Federal Court Act" [not underlined in original].
[9] The reports mentioned here by the applicant consisted of a number of reports which the prison authorities apparently prepared between February and July 2003 when the three decisions covered by the decision of August 25, 2003, were made: these reports were apparently brought to the attention of the Correctional Services of Canada Commissioner for the purposes of her decision dated August 25, 2003 (the reports).
[10] It appeared that, with some exceptions, which we will deal with at the end of the analysis, the applicant was in possession of all relevant documents brought to the attention of the Commissioner for the purposes of her decision of August 25, 2003, including the reports.
[11] In the applicant's submission, the reports were also used for reference in making decisions unfavourable to the applicant, but made after the decision of August 25, 2003.
[12] By his motion at bar, the applicant essentially sought to have those decisions filed in connection with his application for judicial review in the instant case, not to allege that the decision of August 25, 2003, was illegal but to get this Court to directly or indirectly review these later decisions.
[13] That is the inevitable conclusion which the Court must draw here, based on the very words of the applicant. As we saw earlier, the applicant is asking this Court to place the parties back in the position in which they were prior to February 21, 2003. This application does not stop at the three decisions covered by the decision of August 25, 2003, but goes well beyond that, and essentially contemplates any decision after February 21, 2003.
[14] At page 3 of his application for judicial review, the applicant indicated:
[TRANSLATION]
The Respondent's actions have caused the Applicant irreparable harm, and unless this Court intervenes they continue and will continue to have detrimental effects for the Applicant.
[15] In the written submissions filed in support of the motion at bar, the applicant maintains the following, at paragraphs 3 and 4:
[TRANSLATION]
3. Following the filing of the Notice of Application in the case at bar, the Applicant-Moving party received documents and complementary decisions relating to allegations already addressed in the Applicant's Record, which had further consequences for the harm alleged in the Notice of Application and the Applicant's Record (paragraph 2 of the Motion, hereinafter "para.");
4. These documents and decisions are based on the information contained in the reports the striking out of which is requested in the Applicant's Record, as they continue to serve as a reference and to be used by the decision-making authorities of Correctional Services Canada ("the respondent") and the National Parole Board (NPB) so as to continue causing harm to the applicant (para. 3) . . .
[Not underlined in the original.]
Analysis
[16] As rule 302 itself indicates, an application for judicial review shall be limited to a single decision or order. That rule reads:
|
302. Unless the Court orders otherwise, an application for judicial review shall be limited to a single order in respect of which relief is sought. |
302. Sauf ordonnance contraire de la Cour, la demande de contrôle judiciaire ne peut porter que sur une seule ordonnance pour laquelle une réparation est demandée. |
[17] It is thus well established that when a party is seeking relief with respect to several decisions, there must be a separate application for judicial review for each of those decisions. (See Human Rights Institute of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services), [2000] 1 F.C. 475.)
[18] Although the Court has recognized several exceptional factual situations which led to review of several decisions through a single application for judicial review, the applicant at bar is in no way in that kind of situation. (See, inter alia, Mahmood v. Canada, [1998] F.C.J. No. 1345; Puccini v. Canada (Director General, Corporate Administrative Services, Agriculture Canada), [1993] 3 F.C. 557.)
[19] In fact, each decision by the Correctional Service is clearly identifiable in terms of time, so each decision should have been the subject of a separate judicial review.
[20] Consequently, the first remedy sought by the applicant, i.e. to be authorized to file a supplementary record consisting of an affidavit by the applicant and Exhibits R-1 to R-16, is dismissed. The Court would add here that the applicant's motion record did not even contain the applicant's affidavit, which he sought to file.
[21] With respect to the documents sought from the federal department in question, the respondent will have 30 days from the date of this order to attach to an affidavit an expurgated version of the following documents, requested at page 4 of the applicant's application for judicial review:
[TRANSLATION]
Preventive security investigation and preventive security report on the applicant.
[22] The other documents requested from the federal department in this application do not have to be produced.
[23] The objections made at the examination on affidavit of Josée Brunelle are decided with as follows. The respondent will serve a short affidavit by her within 15 days of this order, which will indicate whether the minor offence report made following the seizure of the applicant's property had an impact on raising his security rating. This additional affidavit should also include a transcript of the meeting between Mr. Matteau and the applicant on February 14, 2003, if it exists. Within five days of the service of that affidavit, the applicant may submit to the respondent a short written examination on that affidavit (a maximum of five simple and specific questions), and the respondent will have to reply by affidavit within ten days of service of the written examination.
[24] Any further measure on the examinations on affidavit is dismissed.
[25] The leave sought by the applicant to examine certain persons at the hearing on the merits of his application for judicial review is dismissed, since contrary to the requirements of Rule 316 the applicant did not establish evidence of special circumstances.
[26] Exhibit P-38 will remain confidential until an order to contrary by this Court.
[27] For greater certainty, any other remedy sought by the applicant in his notice of motion or written submissions filed in support of that motion is dismissed.
[28] Costs in the cause on the motion at bar.
[29] Finally, the parties will have to observe the following schedule to complete the stages which have still to be completed:
1. the parties will comply with what is set out in paragraphs [21] to [23] above within 30 days;
2. within ten days of expiry of the 30 days mentioned in point 1, the applicant will serve and file a supplementary record for the applicant containing only short written submissions to cover any new material emerging from the exercises mentioned in point 1;
3. within the next 20 days, the respondent will serve and file his rule 310 record;
4. thereafter, the applicant will comply with rule 314 within the rule deadlines.
|
|
Richard Morneau |
|
|
Prothonotary |
Certified true translation
K. Harvey
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1888-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN-CLAUDE BOUCHARD
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: November 22, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: December 15, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Anne Hébert FOR THE APPLICANT
Yannick Landry FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Anne Hébert FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada