Knapp v. Canada ( Attorney General )
T-641-97
Noël J.
13/11/97
13 pp.
Application for judicial review of National Parole Board Appeal Division decision confirming Board's order applicant, inmate at Warkworth Institution, be detained beyond statutory release date-In February 1990, applicant had pleaded guilty to charges of attempted murder, sexual assault and unlawful confinement-Sentenced to 8 1/2 years imprisonment, with statutory release date of October 18, 1995-At release date, Board decided applicant not eligible for statutory release, based on fact offence had established pattern of persistent violent behaviour, on substantial degree of indifference to consequences of crime on victim, on admission took conscious decisions to commit brutal sexual assault and murder, and on psychological profile depicting applicant's lack of emotional and psychological progress in coming to terms with offence-Appeal Division dismissed appeal and affirmed Board's decision in February 1996-In September 1996, Board held annual review of detention and confirmed original decision-Appeal Division dismissed appeal from annual review decision-Application herein seeking judicial review of Appeal Division's last decision-Application dismissed-While applicant arguing single criminal episode insufficient to establish "pattern of persistent violent behaviour", clear from language of Act, s. 132(1)(a) legislator contemplated possibility pattern of persistent violent behaviour could be said to exist, regardless of number of offences committed by offender-Neither wording of section nor Board's interpretation thereof rendering it vulnerable to Charter, s. 7 challenge for vagueness-Act, s. 132 providing wide parameters for review, including unidentified factors, provided they are relevant-Nothing wrong in Board using its own body of knowledge as Act providing Board had duty to take into consideration all available information relevant to case-So long as information relevant and reliable, must be taken into account irrespective of source-No basis on record for proposition Board declined to give any consideration to specified evidence advanced by applicant-No obligation to produce, examine specialist who wrote report on applicant for crossexamination-So long as process fair and offender allowed to make position known, requirements of procedural fairness met-No duty on Board to call for second opinion-Board did not act on wrong principle or by reference to irrelevant or improper considerations when concluded no resources in place which could adequately supervise applicant within community having regard to his particular needs, and therefore did not have offender undergo community assessment-Decision to order or not to order community assessment discretionary-No basis for suggestion Board failed to make least restrictive determination consistent with protection of society as required by Act, s. 101(d)-Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 101(d), 132-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 7.