PENITENTIARIES |
Graham v. Millhaven Penitentiary
T-608-04
2004 FC 1344, Layden-Stevenson J.
30/9/04
13 pp.
Judicial review of Independent Chairperson's (ICP) decision to impose on inmate sanction of 12 days' disciplinary segregation, loss of privileges--Applicant, inmate at Millhaven Penitentiary, charged with serious disciplinary offence of possession of contraband contrary to Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), s. 40(i) after two homemade concealed weapons discovered in cell--After disciplinary hearing ICP finding applicant guilty of offence--In imposing sanction, ICP considering applicant's previous (and recent) sanction of four days' disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges for contraband weapons offence--Whether disciplinary sanction of loss of privileges may be imposed in conjunction with sanction of disciplinary segregation--Issue, question of law, not dependent on facts of case--CCRA, s. 44(1) enumerating possible sanctions to be imposed on inmates in relation to disciplinary offences, including loss of privileges and segregation--S. 37 providing inmates in administrative segregation have same rights, privileges and conditions of confinement as general inmate population--Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (Regulations), s. 40(3) requiring inmates serving period of disciplinary segregation be accorded same conditions of confinement as accorded to inmates in administrative segregation--Applicant arguing that loss of privileges creating situation whereby inmate not having same conditions of confinement as inmate in administrative segregation or inmate in general population--Neither CCRA nor Regulations stating inmates in disciplinary segregation cannot lose privileges-- Phrase "one or more of the following" in CCRA, s. 44(1) permitting imposition of more than one sanction for inmates found guilty of disciplinary offence, including disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges, subject to limitations in Regulations--Purpose of disciplinary system to encourage inmates to conduct themselves in manner that promotes penitentiary's good order--ICP needing capacity to sanction inmates who have committed disciplinary offences to promote good order--Wording of CCRA, s. 37 indicating "privileges" separate, distinct from "conditions of confinement"-- Therefore, "same conditions of confinement" not meaning inmate in disciplinary segregation accorded all of same rights and privileges as inmate in administrative segregation-- CCRA distinguishing between administrative and disciplinary segregation since reference to "rights and privileges" included in Act, s. 37, not Regulations, s. 40(3)--Balance must be struck between serious and harmful effects of disciplinary segregation and security of penitentiary and safety of staff, inmates, general public--CCRA, s. 44(1) permitting imposition of both disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges simultaneously for inmate found guilty of serious disciplinary offence--ICP correct in interpretation of CCRA provisions according to ordinary and grammatical meaning-- Principle of statutory interpretation of strictly construing penal statutes in favour of subject only applying where meaning of provision ambiguous--Applicable provisions not ambiguous --Moreover, discipline provisions not amounting to penal consequences--Application dismissed--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 37, 40(i), 44(1)--Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, s. 40(3).