Date: 20031210
Docket: T-700-01
Citation: 2003 FC 1438
BETWEEN:
JAMES A. SWEET,
Applicant,
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA,
THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,
LUCIE McCLUNG, FRED TOBIN, JAN LOOMAN, MAURICE GIROUX,
BELINDA ROSCOE, and MIKE KER,
Respondents.
[1] Mr. Justice Cory once noted, "Imprisonment means the denial of freedom of movement and the segregation or isolation of an inmate from society": R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3 at pp. 10, 11. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (the Act) mandates that the purpose of the federal corrections system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by (a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders, and (b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community. Inmates' lives are necessarily structured and their mobility is monitored and constrained.
[2] Inmates housed in federal penitentiaries may be transferred from one parent institution to another parent institution to facilitate family contacts, to improve access to medical and other care, for language or cultural reasons, or for safety reasons (the safety of inmates or others). These transfers have a sense of permanence, i.e., the inmate has a new home.
[3] Inmates housed in federal penitentiaries may also attend court hearings, visit medical or other treatment facilities not available in the penitentiary, or be allowed to take care of urgent family business. These absences are temporary and, depending on the circumstances and the inmates' security classifications, inmates may be secured in another penitentiary, provincial correctional facility, or elsewhere, for the duration of the absence from the parent institution. Inmates are, however, expected to return to the parent institution when their business is complete.
[4] Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has detailed regulations and policies related to the movement of inmates. Depending on the nature and purpose of the movement, various documents or forms must be prepared, interviews conducted, and checks completed. All of this is time consuming. It is more so if the inmate does not agree with corrections officials' decisions about their movements. CSC also has an elaborate grievance system in place for the benefit of inmates who disagree with the decisions made by officials concerning - among other things - their movements.
FACTS
[5] Mr. Sweet is an inmate of Warkworth Penitentiary, a medium security federal institution. He is a repeat sex offender. It was determined that he would benefit from treatment at the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC) located at Kingston Penitentiary. He was voluntarily transported there for treatment under the Sexual Offenders Program (SOP) and expected to be absent from Warkworth for about 30 weeks.
[6] While at the RTC, but before the program began, another inmate complained about Mr. Sweet's behaviour. After a discussion with Mr. Sweet, the program director, Dr. Jan Looman, met with the Acting Deputy Warden, Fred Tobin, and the rest of the management team to discuss the matter. Mr. Tobin made the decision to discharge Mr. Sweet.
[7] Dr. Looman met with Mr. Sweet the next day and informed him of the decision and the reasons. Mr. Sweet agreed to leave, but stated he would be contacting his lawyer. At no time was force used. He was discharged from the treatment program and returned to Warkworth the same day. Mr. Sweet was not granted an opportunity to respond to the decision to send him back to Warkworth. He maintains that he was falsely accused of inappropriate behaviour.
[8] Bypassing the first-level grievance mechanism, Mr. Sweet filed a second-level grievance with the Regional Grievance Coordinator concerning his return to Warkworth. The Deputy Commissioner for the Region responded that the decision was not an involuntary transfer and that the discharge from the treatment program was due to his own inappropriate behaviour.
[9] The third-level grievance was decided by an analyst at national headquarters on behalf of the Commissioner of Corrections. By decision dated March 19, 2001, the Commissioner's delegate found that Mr. Sweet's transfer was involuntary and that he was not granted an opportunity to respond to the recommendation. It was ordered that the Assessment for Decision document be provided to him so that he could respond to it. However, it was also found that the decision to remove Mr. Sweet from the program was justified.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
[10] The relevant provisions of the Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620 (the Regulations), and the Commissioner's Directives and Standard Operating Practices regarding transfer of offenders are attached to these reasons as Schedule "A".
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[11] The standard of review for prisoners' grievance decisions is articulated in Tehrankari v. Canada (2000), 188 F.T.R. 206 (T.D.). Mr. Justice Lemieux, at para. 44, stated:
[...] I would apply a correctness standard if the question involved is the proper interpretation of section 24 of the Act; however, I would apply the standard of reasonableness simpliciter if the question involved is either the application of proper legal principles to the facts or whether the refusal decision to correct information on the offender's file was proper. The patently unreasonable standard applies to pure findings of fact. (Subsection 18.2(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.)
In this case, the question required proper interpretation of the Act and Regulations before that interpretation could be applied to the facts of the situation.
ISSUES
[12] The circumstances reveal four discrete questions to be answered:
1. What is the appropriate characterization of an involuntary discharge from treatment and return to a "parent" correctional facility?
2. Did the Commissioner violate the principles of natural justice in failing to grant an appropriate remedy?
3. What remedy should this Court grant?
4. Should this judicial review be converted into an action?
ANALYSIS
[13] The Commissioner's decision in the third-level grievance is flawed. Either the Commissioner incorrectly characterized Mr. Sweet's transfer as involuntary (an error of law) or the Commissioner properly characterized the transfer as involuntary, but then nullified the remedy by prejudging the merits of Mr. Sweet's argument, thereby violating the requirements of natural justice.
The nature of the transfer
[14] The Commissioner stated that the transfer was involuntary. Whether correct or incorrect, the decision turns on this statement. I conclude that the statement is incorrect because the discharge from RTC and transportation back to Warkworth is not an involuntary transfer. Rather, it is a return from a temporary - and voluntary - absence from the parent institution.
[15] I arrive at this conclusion by way of a purposive and contextual reading of the Act and Regulations. Transfers, governed by section 29 of the Act, apply to situations where it is envisioned that an inmate will be housed permanently in a parent institution until released or transferred again. An involuntary transfer is a type or category of such a transfer.
[16] Subsections 9(a) and 9(f) of the Regulations allow for temporary escorted absences from the institution for the purposes of medical or rehabilitative treatment. This is in keeping with the stated purpose of subsection 3(b) of the Act - to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community. For purposes of this application, it is irrelevant whether the treatments take place in CSC or in non-CSC operated facilities. There is no transfer, in either case, but merely a temporary absence from the parent institution.
[17] The Regulations and the Commissioner's Directives dealing with involuntary transfers do not apply, nor were they intended to apply, to a prisoner assignment to a hospital for treatment. The fact that they are silent with respect to such a contingency is telling. To characterize a transfer for purposes of medical or other treatment as a "transfer" - as the term is used within the meaning of the Act and the Regulations (the housing of an inmate within a federal institution) - would lead to administrative chaos and would frustrate the functioning of the treatment facilities. Regard must be had to the contextual environment involved.
[18] I note that Mr. Sweet signed a contract with respect to his treatment program. The contract specifically provides that breach results in discharge from the program:
Failure to participate in either individual or group sessions may lead to my discharge. As well, while living on the unit I am expected to follow the unit rules, which include abstaining from the use of drugs and alcohol, no verbally or physically threatening behaviour directed toward other inmate/patients or staff, and respecting the confidentiality of those involved in treatment. Violation of these rules may be seen as grounds for dismissal from the programme.
[19] Mr. Sweet's assignment to the treatment facility was governed by the contract. The decision to terminate treatment for breach of that contract constitutes a decision to remove the inmate from the treatment program, not a decision to transfer him. It follows that discharged inmates must be returned to their parent institutions and that their removal from the treatment centre should take place expeditiously, particularly in cases where their presence causes security concerns.
[20] During oral argument, the respondent conceded that the characterization of the transfer as involuntary in the 3rd level grievance decision was flawed. The respondent suggested that that part of the decision be ignored, but that the rest of the decision be upheld.
[21] The respondent argued that, in the circumstances, the requisite minimal procedural fairness had been granted to Mr. Sweet. Even if the transfer was involuntary, there was no legal obligation to follow the Directives. Directives do not have the force of law and do not confer legal rights on inmates. Rather, they set out standards of behaviour and procedure for employees of CSC: Leprette v. Canada (Correctional Service, Regional Transfer Board) (1992), 58 F.T.R. 101 (T.D.).
[22] As I indicated during the hearing, I fail to see how I can accede to the respondent's request when fundamental conclusions in the decision are incompatible with each other.
Natural justice
[23] If I am wrong in my analysis, and the transfer was properly characterized as involuntary - as the third-level grievance decision stated - the affirmation of the decision vitiates that finding. It denies the inmate the very right to which the Commissioner states he should be entitled - to respond to the reasons for involuntary transfer. That response cannot be meaningfully considered if the Commissioner has already decided that the transfer was justified.
[24] In either case, the matter should be remitted to the Commissioner for a redetermination of the third-level grievance in accordance with these reasons.
Remedies
[25] Mr. Sweet requests a number of additional forms of relief: the quashing of his involuntary transfer; an injunction to prevent CSC and its servants and agents from acting contrary to Regulation 12 of the Regulations and subsection 27(1) of the Act; an injunction to prevent CSC and its servants and agents from discharging him from the RTC before he has completed his requested treatment; and a direction that the application for damages is to be treated as, and proceed as, an action for damages in the amount of $5000.
[26] Given my conclusion that the assignment to treatment was a temporary absence, and not an involuntary transfer, the request to quash the involuntary transfer is denied. However, had I found otherwise, little practical purpose could be served by quashing the transfer decision. At this time, there is no evidence before me to indicate the status or availability of any RTC programs. Ordering Mr. Sweet readmitted for treatment in a program that may have already begun or may not currently be offered would be counterproductive.
[27] Mr. Sweet has been assured by CSC officials that if he wishes to apply for and avail himself of future treatment in the SOP, he is free to do so. Such assurances indicate that I need not intervene to grant a remedy that has been and continues to be offered by CSC in a reasonable and meaningful way.
[28] As I have determined that subsection 27(1) dealing with involuntary transfers does not properly apply to this case, the request for an injunction in this regard is denied. In any case, there is no evidence that CSC is acting contrary to subsection 27(1).
[29] The request for an injunction with respect to the discharge from RTC is impossible to grant, as the discharge has already taken place. The treatment program, of which Mr. Sweet speaks, began on December 10, 2000 and his discharge occurred some three years ago. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to fetter the discretion of CSC officials and RTC staff in any otherwise reasonable and legitimate determinations that they may make regarding Mr. Sweet's future treatment or discharge therefrom.
Conversion into Action
[30] Insofar as the request for damages is concerned, damages cannot be awarded on a judicial review application under paragraph 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended. Mr. Sweet has asked that the application for damages be allowed to proceed as an action under paragraph 18.4(2) of the Federal Courts Act. While it is possible to convert a judicial review into an action, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate to do so.
[31] Conversion of an application for judicial review into an action should be allowed only in exceptional circumstances: Canada v. Macinnis, [1994] 2 F.C. 464 (C.A.). Mr. Sweet has presented no argument that would persuade me that the facts in this case cannot be satisfactorily established or weighed through affidavit evidence: Kalke v. Canada 2001 FCT 251, nor has he submitted any other convincing reason to convert his application into an action: Drapeau v. Canada (1995), 179 N.R. 398 (F.C.A.).
[32] Additionally, the conversion of this judicial review into an action would be premature in view of my conclusion that the Commissioner must redetermine the third-level grievance. The redetermination of that matter should come first. It is open to Mr. Sweet to consider his options following that redetermination.
CONCLUSION
[33] Mr. Sweet has asked for costs. As requested by the respondent, I have considered that Mr. Sweet discontinued a portion of his application only after affidavits directed to that issue had been filed and lengthy cross-examinations on those affidavits had been conducted. In the circumstances, I decline to award costs.
[34] The application will be allowed and the third-level grievance decision will be remitted to the Commissioner of Corrections for redetermination in accordance with these reasons. An order will go accordingly.
_____________________________
Judge
Fredericton, New Brunswick
December 10, 2003
SCHEDULE "A"
to the
Reasons for Order dated December 10, 2003
rendered by the Hon. Madam Justice Carolyn Layden-Stevenson
in
JAMES A. SWEET
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
THE CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA,
THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,
LUCIE McCLUNG, FRED TOBIN, JAN LOOMAN, MAURICE GIROUX,
BELINDA ROSCOE, and MIKE KER
T-700-01
| Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20
3. The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by (a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and (b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community. |
|
Loi sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition, L.C. 1992, ch. 20
3. Le système correctionnel vise à contribuer au maintien d'une société juste, vivant en paix et en sécurité, d'une part, en assurant l'exécution des peines par des mesures de garde et de surveillance sécuritaires et humaines, et d'autre part, en aidant au moyen de programmes appropriés dans les pénitenciers ou dans la collectivité, à la réadaptation des délinquants et à leur réinsertion sociale à titre de citoyens respectueux des lois. |
|
|
|
|
| 4. The principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the purpose referred to in section 3 are (a) that the protection of society be the paramount consideration in the corrections process; (b) that the sentence be carried out having regard to all relevant available information, including the stated reasons and recommendations of the sentencing judge, other information from the trial or sentencing process, the release policies of, and any comments from, the National Parole Board, and information obtained from victims and offenders; (c) that the Service enhance its effectiveness and openness through the timely exchange of relevant information with other components of the criminal justice system, and through communication about its correctional policies and programs to offenders, victims and the public; (d) that the Service use the least restrictive measures consistent with the protection of the public, staff members and offenders; (e) that offenders retain the rights and privileges of all members of society, except those rights and privileges that are necessarily removed or restricted as a consequence of the sentence; (f) that the Service facilitate the involvement of members of the public in matters relating to the operations of the Service; (g) that correctional decisions be made in a forthright and fair manner, with access by the offender to an effective grievance procedure; |
|
4. Le Service est guidé, dans l'exécution de ce mandat, par les principes qui suivent_: a) la protection de la société est le critère prépondérant lors de l'application du processus correctionnel; b) l'exécution de la peine tient compte de toute information pertinente dont le Service dispose, notamment des motifs et recommandations donnés par le juge qui l'a prononcée, des renseignements obtenus au cours du procès ou dans la détermination de la peine ou fournis par les victimes et les délinquants, ainsi que des directives ou observations de la Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles en ce qui touche la libération; c) il accroît son efficacité et sa transparence par l'échange, au moment opportun, de renseignements utiles avec les autres éléments du système de justice pénale ainsi que par la communication de ses directives d'orientation générale et programmes correctionnels tant aux délinquants et aux victimes qu'au grand public; d) les mesures nécessaires à la protection du public, des agents et des délinquants doivent être le moins restrictives possible; e) le délinquant continue à jouir des droits et privilèges reconnus à tout citoyen, sauf de ceux dont la suppression ou restriction est une conséquence nécessaire de la peine qui lui est infligée; f) il facilite la participation du public aux questions relatives à ses activités; g) ses décisions doivent être claires et équitables, les délinquants ayant accès à des mécanismes efficaces de règlement de griefs;
|
|
|
|
|
| 27. (1) Where an offender is entitled by this Part or the regulations to make representations in relation to a decision to be taken by the Service about the offender, the person or body that is to take the decision shall, subject to subsection (3), give the offender, a reasonable period before the decision is to be taken, all the information to be considered in the taking of the decision or a summary of that information. |
|
27. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), la personne ou l'organisme chargé de rendre, au nom du Service, une décision au sujet d'un délinquant doit, lorsque celui-ci a le droit en vertu de la présente partie ou des règlements de présenter des observations, lui communiquer, dans un délai raisonnable avant la prise de décision, tous les renseignements entrant en ligne de compte dans celle-ci, ou un sommaire de ceux-ci. |
|
|
|
|
| 29. The Commissioner may authorize the transfer of a person who is sentenced, transferred or committed to a penitentiary to (a) another penitentiary in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(d), subject to section 28; or(b) a provincial correctional facility or hospital in accordance with an agreement entered into under paragraph 16(1)(a) and any applicable regulations. |
|
29. Le commissaire peut autoriser le transfèrement d'une personne condamnée ou transférée au pénitencier, soit à un autre pénitencier, conformément aux règlements pris en vertu de l'alinéa 96d), mais sous réserve de l'article 28, soit à un établissement correctionnel provincial ou un hôpital dans le cadre d'un accord conclu au titre du paragraphe 16(1), conformément aux règlements applicables. |
|
|
|
|
| 90. There shall be a procedure for fairly and expeditiously resolving offenders' grievances on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the procedure shall operate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(u). 91 |
|
90. Est établie, conformément aux règlements d'application de l'alinéa 96u), une procédure de règlement juste et expéditif des griefs des délinquants sur des questions relevant du commissaire. |
|
|
|
|
| 91. Every offender shall have complete access to the offender grievance procedure without negative consequences. |
|
91. Tout délinquant doit, sans crainte de représailles, avoir libre accès à la procédure de règlement des griefs. |
|
|
|
|
| Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620
9. For the purposes of paragraph 17(1)(b) of the Act, the institutional head may authorize an escorted temporary absence of an inmate (a) for medical reasons to allow the inmate to undergo medical examination or treatment that cannot reasonably be provided in the penitentiary; |
|
Règlement sur le système correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition, DORS/92-620
9. Pour l'application de l'alinéa 17(1)b) de la Loi, le directeur du pénitencier peut autoriser le détenu à sortir sous surveillance : a) pour des raisons médicales, afin de lui permettre de subir un examen ou un traitement médical qui ne peut raisonnablement être effectué au pénitencier; |
|
|
|
|
| (f) for personal development for rehabilitative purposes to allow the inmate to participate in specific treatment activities with the goal of reducing the risk of the inmate re-offending, and to allow the inmate to participate in activities of a rehabilitative nature, including cultural and spiritual ceremonies unique to Aboriginal peoples, with the goal of assisting the reintegration of the inmate into the community as a law-abiding citizen; |
|
f) pour du perfectionnement personnel lié à sa réadaptation, afin de lui permettre de participer à des activités liées à un traitement particulier dans le but de réduire le risque de récidive ou afin de lui permettre de participer à des activités de réadaptation, y compris les cérémonies culturelles ou spirituelles propres aux autochtones, dans le but de favoriser sa réinsertion sociale à titre de citoyen respectueux des lois; |
|
|
|
|
| 12. Before the transfer of an inmate pursuant to section 29 of the Act, other than a transfer at the request of the inmate, an institutional head or a staff member designated by the institutional head shall (a) give the inmate written notice of the proposed transfer, including the reasons for the proposed transfer and the proposed destination; (b) after giving the inmate a reasonable opportunity to prepare representations with respect to the proposed transfer, meet with the inmate to explain the reasons for the proposed transfer and give the inmate an opportunity to make representations with respect to the proposed transfer in person or, if the inmate prefers, in writing; (c) forward the inmate's representations to the Commissioner or to a staff member designated in accordance with paragraph 5(1)(b); and (d) give the inmate written notice of the final decision respecting the transfer, and the reasons for the decision, (i) at least two days before the transfer if the final decision is to transfer the inmate, unless the inmate consents to a shorter period; and (ii) within five working days after the decision if the final decision is not to transfer the inmate. |
|
12. Sauf dans le cas du transfèrement demandé par le détenu, le directeur du pénitencier ou l'agent désigné par lui doit, avant le transfèrement du détenu en application de l'article 29 de la Loi : a) l'aviser par écrit du transfèrement projeté, des motifs de cette mesure et de la destination; b) après lui avoir donné la possibilité de préparer ses observations à ce sujet, le rencontrer pour lui expliquer les motifs du transfèrement projeté et lui donner la possibilité de présenter ses observations à ce sujet, en personne ou par écrit, au choix du détenu; c) transmettre les observations du détenu au commissaire ou à l'agent désigné selon l'alinéa 5(1)b); d) l'aviser par écrit de la décision définitive prise au sujet du transfèrement et des motifs de celle-ci : (i) au moins deux jours avant le transfèrement, sauf s'il consent à un délai plus bref lorsque la décision définitive est de le transférer, (ii) dans les cinq jours ouvrables suivant la décision, lorsque la décision définitive est de ne pas le transférer.
|
|
|
|
|
| Commissioner's Directives 540
10. When an involuntary transfer is proposed, an offender shall be advised, in writing, of his or her right to legal counsel without delay. Without delay means immediately unless there are compelling circumstances preventing immediate action and in those circumstances the delay cannot be more than 24 hours. |
|
Directive du commissaire 540
|
|
|
|
|
| 10. Lorsqu'un transfèrement non sollicité est projeté, le délinquant doit être informé par écrit de son droit d'avoir recours aux services d'un avocat sans délai. « Sans délai » signifie immédiatement, sauf dans des circonstances exceptionnelles où il est absolument impossible de le faire immédiatement. Dans de telles circonstances, la durée du délai ne doit pas dépasser 24 heures.12. The Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation, which is provided to an offender, must contain enough information to allow the offender to know the case against him or her. The offender must be in a position to be able to respond to the recommendation for an involutnary transfer. To meet this standard, ther details of the incident(s) which prompted the transfer recommendation must be provided to the greatest extent possible. This may include providing the offender with the following information regarding the incident(s): where it occurred, when it occurred, against whom it occurred, the extent of injury or damage which resulted, the evidence or proof of its occurrence, and any further relevant information which may elaborate on the incident(s). In cases where sensitive information exists which cannot fully be shared, the offender shall be provided with a gist. |
|
12. L'Avis de recommandation d'un transfèrement non sollicité, qui est remis au délinquant, doit contenir suffisamment de renseignements pour lui permettre de savoir ce qu'on lui reproche. Le délinquant doit être en mesure de faire connaître son point de vue sur la recommandation. Pour respecter cette norme, il faut lui communiquer le plus de précisions possible sur le ou les incidents à l'origine de la recommandation de transfèrement. Ces précisions peuvent comprendre notamment: l'endroit et le moment où l'incident s'est produit, la ou les personnes qui en ont subi les conséquences, l'ampleur des blessures ou des dégâts, les éléments de preuve confirmant qu'il a bien eu lieu, et tout autre renseignement pertinent pouvant apporter des précisions sur l'incident. S'il existe des renseignements de nature délicate qui ne peuvent être divulgués intégralement au délinquant, il faut lui en communiquer l'essentiel. |
|
|
|
|
| Transfer of Offenders - Standard Operating Practices (SOP 700-15)
7. Prior to a transfer to a regional health/psychiatric centre to participate in a program or an assessment or to receive health care services, the offender shall be clearly informed that upon completion of the program or assessment or the provision of the required health services, he or she will be returned to his or her parent institution. Furthermore, the offender shall be advised that failure to fully participate in programming, in cases where that is the purpose of the transfer, may result in a discharge from the program and return to his or her parent institution. In some cases, it may be necessary to temporarily house an offender in another institution for a short period of time before returning him or her to the parent institution. Every movement between institutions requires a transfer warrant. |
|
Transfèrement de délinquants - Instructions permanentes (IP 700-15)
7. Avant qu'un délinquant ne soit transféré à un centre de santé ou centre psychiatrique régional pour y participer à un programme, y subir une évaluation ou y recevoir des soins de santé, il doit être clairement informé qu'une fois le programme, l'évaluation ou le traitement terminé, il sera renvoyé à son établissement d'origine. De plus, lorsque le transfèrement vise à permettre au délinquant de participer à un programme particulier, il faut l'informer que son manque de participation active à ce programme pourrait entraîner son renvoi du programme et son retour à son établissement d'origine. Dans certains cas, il peut être nécessaire d'héberger le délinquant temporairement dans un autre établissement avant de le renvoyer à son établissement d'origine. Chaque fois qu'un délinquant est déplacé d'un établissement à l'autre, il faut émettre un mandat de transfèrement. |
|
|
|
|
|
8. Should the regional health/psychiatric centre, following consultation with the parent institution, wish to transfer the offender to an institution other than the parent institution, the procedures and timeframes associated with the type of transfer will apply. |
|
8. Si, après avoir consulté l'établissement d'origine du délinquant, le centre de santé ou centre psychiatrique régional veut le transférer à un établissement autre que son établissement d'origine, il doit suivre les procédures établies et respecter les délais prescrits, selon la nature du transfèrement envisagé. |
|
|
|
|
| 9. The Assessment for Decision shall be provided to the offender at the same time as the offender is provided with written notification of a recommendation for an involuntary transfer. However, in the case of an emergency transfer, the Assessment for Decision must be completed at the earliest possible time within 2 working days following the offender's emergency transfer. |
|
9. L'Évaluation en vue d'une décision doit être remise au délinquant en même temps que l'Avis de recommandation d'un transfèrement non sollicité. Cependant, s'il s'agit d'un transfèrement d'urgence, l'Évaluation en vue d'une décision doit être rédigée le plus tôt possible, mais au plus tard dans les deux (2) jours ouvrables suivant le transfèrement du délinquant. |
|
|
|
|
| 11. The Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation shall normally be used to notify the offender of the reasons and destination of the proposed transfer. |
|
11. Il faut normalement utiliser le formulaire « Avis de recommandation d'un transfèrement non sollicité » pour informer le délinquant des motifs du transfèrement et de l'établissement d'accueil proposé. |
|
|
|
|
| 13. In those cases where the decision-making authority is considering a transfer to a different institution from that identified to the offender in the notice of transfer recommendation, a second notification must be provided. The offender shall again be provided with the opportunity to respond, in writing or in person, to the recommendation. |
|
13. Lorsque le décideur envisage un transfèrement à un établissement autre que celui qui a été indiqué au délinquant dans l'Avis de recommandation d'un transfèrement non sollicité, un second avis doit lui être remis. Il faut, de nouveau, donner au délinquant l'occasion de faire connaître son point de vue par écrit ou en personne. |
|
|
|
|
| 14. A copy of the Correctional Plan Progress Report (if prepared) and Assessment for Decision prepared for the transfer recommendation shall be attached to the Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation and a copy provided to the offender. The Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation will make specific reference to the Correctional Plan Progress Report and Assessment for Decision as supporting documents for the transfer recommendation. |
|
14. Des copies du Suivi du plan correctionnel (s'il est préparé) et de l'Évaluation en vue d'une décision, rédigés pour étayer la recommandation du transfèrement, doit être annexées à l'Avis de recommandation d'un transfèrement non sollicité. Il faut aussi en remettre une copie au délinquant. L'Avis de recommandation doit préciser que la recommandation de transfèrement est fondée sur le Suivi du plan correctionnel et l'Évaluation en vue d'une décision. |
|
|
|
|
| 15. In accordance with section 12 of the CCRR, the institutional head or a staff member designated by the institutional head shall: a. advise the offender, in writing, of the reasons for and destination of the proposed transfer; b. provide the offender two (2) working days or longer as is appropriate to prepare a response to the proposed transfer; c. meet with the offender to explain the reasons for and give him or her an opportunity to respond to the proposed transfer, in person or, if the offender prefers, in writing. In case where the offender responds in person, his or her response must be documented in the Offender Management System (OMS) in a "Casework Record - Rebuttal"; d. forward the offender's response to the appropriate decision-maker (refer to Annex "A" of Commissioner's Directive 540); e. give the offender written notice of the final decision and the reasons for the decision: - at least two (2) days before effecting the transfer, unless the offender consents to a shorter period or waives the two-day period (in such cases, the offender's consent shall be recorded on the Notice of Involuntary Transfer Decision); - within five (5) working days of the decision being made, if the final decision is not to transfer the offender. |
|
15. Conformément à l'article 12 du RSCMLC, le directeur ou un membre du personnel désigné par ce dernier doit:
a. informer le délinquant par écrit des motifs et de la destination du transfèrement projeté; b. accorder au délinquant un délai d'au moins deux (2) jours ouvrables, ou un délai plus long s'il y a lieu, pour lui permettre de préparer ses observations sur le transfèrement projeté; c. rencontrer le délinquant pour lui expliquer les motifs et lui donner l'occasion de présenter ses observations sur le transfèrement projeté, en personne ou par écrit, selon son choix. Lorsque les observations du délinquant sont présentées oralement, elles doivent être consignées dans un « Registre des interventions - Réfutation » au Système de gestion des délinquants (SGD); d. transmettre les observations du délinquant au décideur compétent (voir l'annexe « A » de la Directive du commissaire 540); e aviser le délinquant par écrit de la décision finale concernant le transfèrement ainsi que des motifs de cette décision: - au moins deux (2) jours avant le transfèrement, lorsqu'il est décidé de le transférer, sauf si le délinquant consent à un délai plus court ou renonce complètement à ce délai (le cas échéant, le consentement du délinquant doit être consigné à l'Avis de décision d'un transfèrement non sollicité); - dans les cinq (5) jours ouvrables suivant la prise de la décision, lorsqu'il est décidé de ne pas le transférer. |
|
|
|
|
| 16. In accordance with subsection 13(2) of the CCRR, where an involuntary transfer takes place without prior notification to the offender, the institutional head of the receiving institution or a staff member designated by the institutional head shall: a. meet with the offender within two (2) working days of his or her placement in the receiving institution to explain the reasons for the transfer and provide him or her with the written Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation, the Correctional Plan Progress Report (if prepared) and the Assessment for Decision; b. provide the offender two (2) working days or longer as is appropriate to respond to the proposed transfer, in person or, if the offender prefers, in writing. In cases where the offender responds in person, his or her response must be documented in the Offender Management System in a "Casework Record - Rebuttal"; c. forward the offender's response to the appropriate decision-maker (refer to Annexe "A" of Commissioner's Directive 540);d. give the offender written notice of the final decision and the reasons for the decision within five (5) working days of the decision being made. |
|
16. Conformément au paragraphe 13(2) du RSCMLC, lorsque le transfèrement non sollicité a lieu sans avis préalable au délinquant, le directeur de l'établissement d'accueil ou un membre du personnel désigné par ce dernier doit: a. rencontrer le délinquant dans les deux (2) jours ouvrables suivant son placement à l'établissement d'accueil pour lui expliquer les motifs du transfèrement et lui remettre une copie de l'Avis de recommandation d'un transfèrement non sollicité, du Suivi du plan correctionnel (s'il est préparé) et de l'Évaluation en vue d'une décision; b. accorder au délinquant un délai de deux (2) jours ouvrables, ou un délai plus long s'il y a lieu, pour lui permettre de présenter ses observations sur le transfèrement, en personne ou par écrit, selon son choix. Lorsque les observations du délinquant sont présentées oralement, elles doivent être consignées dans un « Registre des interventions - Réfutation » au SGD; c. faire parvenir la réponse du délinquant au décideur compétent (voir l'annexe « A » de la Directive du commissaire 540); d. aviser le délinquant par écrit de la décision finale, de même que des motifs la justifiant, dans les cinq (5) jours ouvrables suivant le prise de la décision. |
|
|
|
|
| 17. In emergency situations, the institutional head may effect a transfer to another institution in the same Region, by issuing a warrant under his or her signature, following notification to the designated individual at Regional Headquarters. In the case of an intra-regional emergency transfer where it is not possible to reach the regional authorities, the institutional head may issue the warrant under his or her own authority and shall notify Regional Headquarters at the first opportunity. In addition, the sending institution shall notify the receiving institution of the transfer before it is effected. |
|
17. Dans une situation d'urgence, le directeur de l'établissement peut procéder à un transfèrement à un autre établissement de la même région en délivrant un mandat portant sa signature après en avoir avisé la personne désignée à l'administration régionale. Dans le cas d'un transfèrement intrarégional d'urgence, lorsqu'il est impossible de rejoindre les autorités régionales, le directeur de l'établissement peut délivrer lui-même le mandat en vertu des pouvoirs qui lui ont été conférés, mais il doit en aviser l'administration régionale le plus tôt possible. De plus, l'établissement de départ doit aviser l'établissement d'accueil du transfèrement avant que celui-ci ne soit effectué. |
|
|
|
|
| 18. Although it may not be feasible to hold a case conference between institutions prior to the offender's transfer, one should take place as soon as possible after the transfer is effected. |
|
18. Il se peut que les établissements ne soient pas en mesure de tenir une conférence de cas avant le transfèrement du délinquant. Dans ce cas, la conférence de cas doit avoir lieu le plus tôt possible après le transfèrement. |
|
|
|
|
| 19. Inter-regional involuntary emergency transfers may be effected after consultation between the sending and the receiving Regions. |
|
19. Un transfèrement interrégional non sollicité d'urgence peut être effectué après consultation entre les régions de départ et d'accueil. |
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-700-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAMES A. SWEET v. A.G.C. ET AL
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 21, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAYDEN-STEVENSON
DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2003
APPEARANCES:
MR. JAMES A. SWEET FOR HIMSELF
MRS. SADIAN G. CAMPBELL FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MRS. SADIAN G. CAMPBELL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
TORONTO REGIONAL OFFICE
THE EXCHANGE TOWER
130 QUEEN STREET W.
SUITE 3400, BOX 36
TORONTO, ONTARIO FOR RESPONDENT