PENITENTIARIES |
Mallette v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-1260-02
2004 FC 151, Harrington J.
30/1/04
21 pp.
Judicial review of decision by inmate grievance committee of Correctional Service Canada (CSC) dismissing grievance of Stéphane Mallette (applicant)--Grievance concerned dismissal of application for reconsideration of security level and involuntary transfer to Drummond Institution, medium security penitentiary--While at minimum security Montée St-François Institution, applicant showed certain relevant progress in terms of correctional plan and consequently able to benefit from temporary absences to encourage return to society--Temporary absences subsequen-tly cancelled when he admitted taking drugs following urine test--On January 23, 2002, applicant transferred to Drummond Institution--Filed grievance at second level of grievance procedure against decision setting security rating at medium and against involuntary transfer to Drummond Institution--Grievance rejected at third level and it was stated his security rating (medium) would remain--Decision in question purely administrative--Natural justice requires inmates have right to know gist of allegations made against them so they can respond intelligently to such allegations--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 27 (Act) provides applicant entitled to receive, within reasonable period before decision to transfer taken, relevant information leading to decision or summary thereof--Principles of natural justice and fairness common law rules which are flexible, in sense application to individual cases will vary according to circumstances of each case--Flexibility has led courts in penitentiary context, to limit intervention to cases of flagrant injustice--Decision on transfer taken to maintain good order in penitentiary and ensure protection of public--As such, procedural fairness does not require applicant have as many details as in case of disciplinary charge--In case at bar CSC provided applicant with sufficient information to allow him to understand why CSC wanted to transfer him--Applicant met with segregation committee, which explained to him there was information with preventive security from four different sources--CSC also gave applicant all information Correctional Service would be taking into account in assessing security rating--No breach of duty to disclose relevant information before hearing held--Applicant fully aware of information which led CSC to place him in administrative segregation and then reassess security rating upward--Application dismissed--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 27 (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 42, s. 10).