Date: 20000626
Docket: T-1254-99
Ottawa, Ontario, June 26, 2000
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
Between:
MARIE-CHANTALE LEDUC,
Applicant,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent.
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of the National Parole Board, rendered on February 16, 1999, revoking the applicant's day parole, is dismissed, with costs.
| Judge |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
Date: 20000626
Docket: T-1254-99
Between:
MARIE-CHANTALE LEDUC,
Applicant,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] The applicant is seeking judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board, which upheld the revocation of her day parole under section 135(5) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (the "Act").
[2] On March 3, 1998, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and six days. On the following August 28, the National Parole Board ("NPB"), using the accelerated review procedure under section 125 of the Act, ordered that the applicant be placed on day parole effective September 3, 1998. On November 3, the applicant was placed on full parole,1 but on November 9, 1998, a parole suspension warrant was issued against her. And on February 16, 1999, in a postsuspension hearing, the NPB revoked the applicant's day parole. This decision, which was appealed to the Appeal Division of the NPB, was upheld on June 10, 1999. It is this decision for which judicial review is sought.
[3] The applicant argues that the NPB erred in law in its interpretation of sections 125 et seq. of the Act. Since her release had been ordered under the accelerated review procedure set out in sections 125 and 126 of the Act, she says, the NPB should have applied the accelerated review criteria in her postsuspension hearing. Since the NPB, when putting the applicant on conditional release, had held that there was no reasonable ground to think that she was likely to commit a crime involving violence, the applicant submits that in order to revoke her day parole, the NPB had to find that her risk of re-offending in a violent crime was beyond the society's level of tolerance.
[4] The respondent submits that parole may be revoked following a suspension for breach of condition, even if it had been ordered through the accelerated review procedure, if in the Board's opinion the risk of re-offending, whether the new offence is or is not accompanied by violence, is beyond the society's level of tolerance.
[5] Sections 125 and 1262 of the Act allow an offender who fulfills certain requirements to be released on full parole if the Board is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender, if released, is likely to commit an offence involving violence before the expiration of the offender's sentence. These provisions also apply to the accelerated review procedure for granting day parole to an offender (s. 126.1).
[6] As the Board's Policy Manual indicates,3 when granting parole or day parole by way of an accelerated review the NPB may impose special conditions that the offender must comply with during his or her parole or day parole, to decrease the risk of re-offending non-violently:
| When release on full parole is directed, the Board shall assess the risk of reoffending non-violently and consider imposing conditions necessary to address this risk. This assessment will use the risk assessment criteria outlined in the NPB pre-release decision policies (2.1). |
[7] In the case at bar, in addition to the conditions automatically imposed in any form of parole by subsection 133(2) of the Act4 and subsection 161(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, S.O.R./92-620, the NPB had also imposed some special conditions on the applicant's parole in accordance with section 133(3) of the Act.5 Under these conditions, inter alia, the applicant was to be subject to psychological monitoring, the filing of a detailed statement of her income and expenses, and the prohibition of any contact with persons possessing a criminal record. The Board had also warned the applicant that if she failed to comply with these conditions her day parole might "[translation] be suspended and possibly revoked".6
[8] Under the Act, ordinary parole or statutory parole, including, needless to say, day parole, may be suspended or revoked. Sections 135 et seq. of the Act state how the Board may come to suspend or revoke parole, irrespective of whether it was ordered by way of accelerated review or otherwise. Subsection 135(1) outlines the parameters:
| 135.(1) [Suspension of parole or statutory release] A member of the Board or a person designated by name or by position, by the Chairperson of the Board or by the Commissioner, when an offender breaches a condition of parole or statutory release or when the member or person is satisfied that it is necessary and reasonable to suspend the parole or statutory release in order to prevent a breach of any condition thereof or to protect society, may, by warrant, a) suspend the parole or statutory release; b) authorize the apprehension of the offender; and c) authorize the recommitment of the offender to custody until the suspension is cancelled, the parole or statutory release is terminated or revoked or the sentence of the offender has expired according to law. |
| 135.(1) [Suspension ] En cas d'inobservation des conditions de la libération conditionnelle ou d'office ou lorsqu'il est convaincu qu'il est raisonnable et nécessaire de prendre cette mesure pour empêcher la violation de ces conditions ou pour protéger la société, un membre de la Commission ou la personne que le président ou le commissaire désigne nommément ou par indication de son poste peut, par mandat: a) suspendre la libération conditionnelle ou d'office; b) autoriser l'arrestation du délinquant; c) ordonner la réincarcération du délinquant jusqu'à ce que la suspension soit annulée ou que la libération soit révoquée ou qu'il y soit mis fin, ou encore jusqu'à l'expiration légale de la peine. |
[9] In this case, the NPB revoked the applicant's parole under paragraph 135(5)(b) of the Act:
| (5) The Board shall, on the referral to it of the case of an offender serving a sentence of two years or more, review the case and, within the period prescribed by the regulations, unless the Board grants an adjournment at the offender's request, (a) cancel the suspension, where the Board is satisfied that, in view of the offender's behaviour since release, the resumption of parole or statutory release would not constitute an undue risk to society by reason of the offender reoffending before the expiration of the offender's sentence according to law; (b) where the Board is not satisfied as provided in paragraph (a), terminate the parole or statutory release of the offender if it was suspended by reason of circumstances beyond the offender's control or revoke it in any other case; or (c) where the offender is no longer eligible for the parole or statutory release, terminate or revoke it. |
5) Une fois saisie du dossier d'un délinquant qui purge une peine de deux ans ou plus, la Commission examine le cas et, dans le délai réglementaire, à moins d'accorder un ajournement à la demande du délinquant: a) soit annule la suspension si elle est d'avis, compte tenu de la conduite du délinquant depuis sa libération conditionnelle ou d'office, que le risque de récidive avant l'expiration légale de la peine que purge le délinquant n'est pas inacceptable pour la société; b) soit, si elle n'a pas cette conviction, met fin à la libération si celle-ci a été suspendue pour des raisons qui ne sont pas imputables au délinquant ou la révoque, dans le cas contraire; c) soit révoque la libération ou y met fin si le délinquant n'y est plus admissible. |
[Emphasis added]
[10] The applicant argues, in general, that paragraph 135(5)(b) of the Act allows the revocation of a parole ordered under the accelerated review procedure only where the Board finds that the risk of re-offending in a violent crime would exceed the tolerance level of society.
[11] I do not agree. In my view, this interpretation would mean adding some language that is not found in section 135 and it should consequently be rejected. As Professor Côté says, in his book The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd ed.) (Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais, 1991), at p. 231:
| Since the judge's task is to interpret the statute, not to create it, as a general rule, interpretation should not add to the terms of the law. Legislation is deemed to be well drafted, and to express completely what the legislator wanted to say: |
| It is a strong thing to read into an Act of Parliament words which are not there, and in the absence of clear necessity it is a wrong thing to do. [Lord Mersey, Thompson v. Goold & Co., [1910] A.C. 409, 420] |
[12] In the case at bar, I am of the opinion that the NPB had evidence to show that the applicant had failed to comply with certain conditions that had been imposed on her in order to reduce her risk of re-offending in non-violent crimes. Accordingly, it was not unreasonable for the Board to conclude that the applicant's release had to be revoked.
[13] For these reasons, the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
| Judge |
Ottawa, Ontario
June 26, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L., Trad. a.
APPENDIX
to the reasons of the Honourable Mr. Justice Denault, June 26, 2000
in case number T-1254-99
MARIE-CHANTALE LEDUC
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
| 125. (1) This section and section 126 apply to an offender sentenced, committed or transferred to penitentiary for the first time, otherwise than pursuant to an agreement entered into under paragraph 16(1)(b), other than an offender (a) serving a sentence for one of the following offences, namely, (i) murder, (ii) an offence set out in Schedule I, (iii) an offence under section 463 of the Criminal Code that was prosecuted by indictment in relation to an offence set out in Schedule I, other than the offence set out in paragraph (1)(q) of that Schedule, (iv) an offence set out in Schedule II in respect of which an order has been made under section 743.6 of the Criminal Code, (a.1) convicted of an offence under section 240 of the Criminal Code; (b) serving a life sentence imposed otherwise than as a minimum punishment; or (c) whose day parole has been revoked. (1.1) For greater certainty, this section and section 126 (a) apply to an offender referred to in subsection (1) who, after being sentenced, committed or transferred to penitentiary for the first time, is sentenced in respect of an offence, other than an offence referred to in paragraph (1)(a), that was committed before the offender was sentenced, committed or transferred to penitentiary for the first time; and (b) do not apply to an offender referred to in subsection (1) who, after being sentenced, committed or transferred to penitentiary for the first time, commits an offence under an Act of Parliament for which the offender receives an additional sentence. (2) The Service shall, at the time prescribed by the regulations, review the case of an offender to whom this section applies for the purpose of referral of the case to the Board for a determination under section 126. (3) A review made pursuant to subsection (2) shall be based on all reasonably available information that is relevant, including (a) the social and criminal history of the offender obtained pursuant to section 23; (b) information relating to the performance and behaviour of the offender while under sentence; and (c) any information that discloses a potential for violent behaviour by the offender. (4) On completion of a review pursuant to subsection (2), the Service shall, within such period as is prescribed by the regulations preceding the offender's eligibility date for full parole, refer the case to the Board together with all information that, in its opinion, is relevant to the case. |
| (5) The Service may delegate to the correctional authorities of a province its powers under this section in relation to offenders who are serving their sentences in provincial correctional facilities in that province. 126. (1) The Board shall review without a hearing, at or before the time prescribed by the regulations, the case of an offender referred to it pursuant to section 125. (2) Notwithstanding section 102, if the Board is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender, if released, is likely to commit an offence involving violence before the expiration of the offender's sentence according to law, it shall direct that the offender be released on full parole. (3) If the Board does not direct, pursuant to subsection (2), that the offender be released on full parole, it shall report its refusal to so direct, and its reasons, to the offender. (4) The Board shall refer any refusal and reasons reported to the offender pursuant to subsection (3) to a panel of members other than those who reviewed the case under subsection (1), and the panel shall review the case at the time prescribed by the regulations. (5) Notwithstanding section 102, if the panel reviewing a case pursuant to subsection (4) is satisfied as described in subsection (2), the panel shall direct that the offender be released on full parole. (6) An offender who is not released on full parole pursuant to subsection (5) is entitled to subsequent reviews in accordance with subsection 123(5). (7) In this section, "offence involving violence" means murder or any offence set out in Schedule I, but, in determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender is likely to commit an offence involving violence, it is not necessary to determine whether the offender is likely to commit any particular offence. (8) Where the parole of an offender released pursuant to this section is terminated or revoked, the offender is not entitled to another review pursuant to this section. 1992, c. 20, s. 126; 1995, c. 42, s. 40. 126.1 Sections 125 and 126 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, to a review to determine if an offender referred to in subsection 119.1 should be released on day parole. |
| 125. (1) Le présent article et l'article 126 s'appliquent aux délinquantscondamnés ou transférés pour la première fois au pénitencier - autrement qu'envertu de l'accord visé au paragraphe 16(1) -, à l'exception de ceux : a) qui y purgent une peine pour une des infractions suivantes : (i) le meurtre, (ii) une infraction mentionnée à l'annexe I, (iii) l'infraction prévue à l'article 463 du Code criminel et relative à uneinfraction mentionnée à l'annexe I - sauf celle qui est prévue à l'alinéa (1)q)de celle-ci - et ayant fait l'objet d'une poursuite par mise en accusation, (iv) une infraction mentionnée à l'annexe II et sanctionnée par une peine ayantfait l'objet d'une ordonnance rendue en vertu de l'article 743.6 du Code criminel, a.1) qui ont été déclarés coupables de l'infraction visée à l'article 240 du Code criminel; b) qui purgent une peine d'emprisonnement à perpétuité à condition que cette peine n'ait pas constitué un minimum en l'occurrence; c) dont la semi-liberté a été révoquée. (1.1) Il est entendu que le présent article et l'article 126 : a) s'appliquent aux délinquants visés au paragraphe (1) et qui, après leur condamnation ou leur transfèrement au pénitencier pour la première fois, sont condamnés pour une infraction - autre qu'une infraction visée à l'alinéa (1)a) - commise avant cette condamnation ou ce transfert; b) ne s'appliquent pas aux délinquants visés au paragraphe (1) et qui, après leur condamnation ou leur transfèrement au pénitencier pour la première fois, commettent une infraction à une loi fédérale pour laquelle une peine d'emprisonnement supplémentaire est infligée. (2) Le Service procède, au cours de la période prévue par règlement, à l'étude des dossiers des délinquants visés par le présent article en vue de leur transmission à la Commission pour décision conformément à l'article 126. (3) L'étude du dossier se fonde sur tous les renseignements pertinents qui sont normalement disponibles, notamment : a) les antécédents sociaux et criminels du délinquant obtenus en vertu de l'article 23; b) l'information portant sur sa conduite pendant la détention; c) tout autre renseignement révélant une propension à la violence de sa part. (4) Au terme de l'étude, le Service transmet à la Commission, dans les délais réglementaires impartis mais avant la date d'admissibilité du délinquant à la libération conditionnelle totale, les renseignements qu'il juge utiles. |
| (5) Le Service peut déléguer aux autorités correctionnelles d'une province les pouvoirs que lui confère le présent article en ce qui concerne les délinquants qui purgent leur peine dans un établissement correctionnel de la province. 126. (1) La Commission procède sans audience, au cours de la période prévue par règlement ou antérieurement, à l'examen des dossiers transmis par le Service ou les autorités correctionnelles d'une province. (2) Par dérogation à l'article 102, quand elle est convaincue qu'il n'existe aucun motif raisonnable de croire que le délinquant commettra une infraction accompagnée de violence s'il est remis en liberté avant l'expiration légale de sa peine, la Commission ordonne sa libération conditionnelle totale. (3) Si elle est convaincue du contraire, la Commission communique au délinquant ses conclusions et motifs. (4) La Commission transmet ses conclusions et motifs à un comité constitué de commissaires n'ayant pas déjà examiné le cas et chargé, au cours de la période prévue par règlement, du réexamen du dossier. (5) Si le réexamen lui apporte la conviction précisée au paragraphe (2), le comité ordonne la libération conditionnelle totale du délinquant. (6) Dans le cas contraire, la libération conditionnelle totale est refusée, le délinquant continuant toutefois d'avoir droit au réexamen de son dossier selon les modalités prévues au paragraphe 123(5). (7) Pour l'application du présent article, une infraction accompagnée de violence s'entend du meurtre ou de toute infraction mentionnée à l'annexe I; toutefois, il n'est pas nécessaire, en déterminant s'il existe des motifs raisonnables de croire que le délinquant en commettra une, de préciser laquelle. (8) En cas de révocation ou de cessation de la libération conditionnelle, le délinquant perd le bénéfice de la procédure expéditive. 126.1 Les articles 125 et 126 s'appliquent, avec les adaptations nécessaires, à la procédure d'examen expéditif visant à déterminer si la semi-liberté sera accordée au délinquant visé à l'article 119.1. |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| DOCKET NO: T-1254-99 |
| STYLE: Marie-Chantale Leduc v. Attorney General of Canada |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: May 29, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF DENAULT J.
DATED: June 26, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Martin Latour FOR THE APPLICANT
Éric Lafrenière FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
__________________1 The full parole was postponed to March 5, 1999, however, because the applicant had been sentenced September 9, 1998 to a new term of 2 years and 6 months.
2 Reproduced in an appendix to this decision.
3 Volume 1, No. 5, May 1999, under chapter 4.3, "Accelerated Review", p. 9 of the Respondent's Record.
4 133.(2) [Conditions of release] Subject to subsection (6), every offender released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence is subject to the conditions prescribed by the regulations.
133.(2) [Conditions automatiques] Sous réserve du paragraphe (6), les conditions prévues par règlement sont réputées avoir été imposées dans tous les cas de libération conditionnelle ou d'office ou de permission de sortir sans escorte.
5 133.(3) [Conditions set by releasing authority] The releasing authority may impose any conditions on the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender.
133.(3) [Conditions particulières] L'autorité compétente peut imposer au délinquant qui bénéficie d'une libération conditionnelle ou d'office ou d'une permission de sortir sans escorte les conditions qu'elle juge raisonnables et nécessaires pour protéger la société et favoriser la réinsertion sociale du délinquant.
6 NPB decision dated August 28, 1998 (p. 5).