Giesbrecht v. Canada
T-377-98
Rothstein J.
8/5/98
7 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision of Regional Transfer Board approving involuntary transfer of applicant from medium security Saskatchewan Penitentiary to maximum security Edmonton institution-Applicant found by Regional Transfer Board to have been involved in intended escape-Applicant grieved decision, also sought judicial review-Legislative scheme for grievances with respect to prison inmates found in Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Regulations-On its face, legislative scheme providing for grievances adequate alternative remedy to judicial review-Grievances to be handled expeditiously, time limits provided in Commissioner's Directives-In Hutton v. Canada (Chief of Defence Staff), [1998] 1 F.C. 219 (T.D.), complaint filed with Canadian Human Rights Commission required internal armed forces grievance procedure to be suspended by reason of provision similar to Regulations, s. 81(1)-Complaint to Human Rights Commission rendered internal grievance procedure inadequate alternative remedy to judicial review as internal grievance procedure temporarily precluded by filing of Human Rights complaint while judicial review was not-Hutton exceptional case-Applicant should not be able to manipulate requirement to exhaust adequate alternative remedies before seeking judicial review-In present case, filing of judicial review itself precluding grievance from proceeding by reason of s. 81(1)-However, judicial review within Court's control, as contrasted with Canadian Human Rights proceeding in Hutton over which Court had no control-Court to decide whether grievance process constituted adequate alternative remedy-Judicial review discretionary remedy-Court not precluded from determining adequate alternative remedy exists simply because applicant has filed judicial review application-Application dismissed-Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20-Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, s. 81.