A-98-81
Charles Vernon Myers (Appellant)
v.
National Parole Board (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow C.J., Culliton and Ver-
chere D.JJ.—Calgary, September 25, 1981.
Prerogative writs — Application for writ of prohibition to
prohibit the respondent from requiring the appellant to settle
his tax indebtedness as a condition of grant of parole and
application for writ of certiorari to quash the Board's decision
to deny the appellant parole were dismissed — Appellant
convicted of tax evasion — Appellant was and is unlawfully at
large — Whether Board is entitled to consider what the
appellant has done since his incarceration to make amends for
the evasion of taxation — Whether it would be an improper
exercise of the Court's discretion to grant certiorari when
appellant is unlawfully at large — Appeal dismissed.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Roger T. Hughes for appellant.
Brian Saunders for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
MacLeod Dixon, Calgary, for appellant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
THURLOW C.J.: We do not need to hear you
Mr. Saunders.
We agree with the learned Trial Judge [[1981]
2 F.C. 696] that the prohibition issue is somewhat
academic at this time and we are further of the
opinion that the appellant's application was with
out merit. There is, in the material before the
Court, no reason to believe that the National
Parole Board has exceeded or will exceed its juris
diction in the manner contended by counsel for the
appellant, that is to say, by requiring the appellant
to pay or settle his tax indebtedness before grant
ing the appellant parole.
Moreover, in our opinion, the Board is entitled
to take into account, in considering whether parole
should be granted, what the appellant has done
since his incarceration to make amends for the
evasion of taxation in respect of which he was
sentenced to imprisonment.
Further, notwithstanding the objections raised
by counsel for the appellant to the Board's deci
sion, the appellant cannot expect the Court in the
circumstances to exercise in his favour the discre
tion to issue certiorari to quash the Board's deci
sion to deny the appellant parole. The appellant
was and is unlawfully at large, having failed to
return to prison at the end of an unescorted tempo
rary absence granted by the Board. In the words of
paragraph 15 of the memorandum filed by his
solicitor:
Myers did not return to the Federal Penitentiary but remains at
large outside Canada pending satisfactory resolution of these
proceedings.
To grant him certiorari under such circum
stances would be an improper exercise of the
Court's discretion.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.