Date: 20011107
Docket: T-2218-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1219
BETWEEN:
PIERRE-PAUL POULIN
Plaintiff
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
[1] This is a motion asking the Court to authorize the plaintiff to appear in person at his hearing set down for January 24, 2002, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998.
[2] The hearing of the instant application for judicial review is set down for January 24, 2002 at the Federal Court in Vancouver.
[3] The plaintiff Pierre-Paul Poulin is currently an inmate at the Mission Institution located at 8751 Stave Lake Road, Mission District, in British Columbia.
[4] In para. 7 of his written submissions the plaintiff stated that he [TRANSLATION] "has reasonable grounds to believe that his physical presence is necessary at the hearing of the said case and is fundamentally important for him to present his case and obtain justice".
[5] Essentially, the application for judicial review concerns a decision by Michel Roy, ACCD, who refused to allow the plaintiff to file a grievance at the third level. Essentially the case concerns a transfer application by the plaintiff.
[6] When an individual is an inmate in a prison or penitentiary he or she may be prevented from attending a hearing affecting him or her unless they obtain leave from the Court.
[7] According to the information appearing in the record the plaintiff is currently serving a term of imprisonment on four counts of first-degree murder. If the plaintiff was to be taken to the Court in Vancouver, it would of course require the presence of several guards to ensure security in such a situation.
[8] In Wedow v. Canada (Correctional Service), 2001 FCT 350, Teitelbaum J. said at paras. 11 and 12:
[11] I am satisfied that the Applicant can adequately represent himself if the Application for Judicial Review is heard by a Judge of the Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division by means of a Telephone Conference Call.
[12] It is therefore Ordered that the hearing of the Application for Judicial Review be heard by means of a Telephone Conference Call at a time and date as determined by the Office of the Associate Chief Justice.
[9] I have no hesitation in concluding that the situation that prevailed in the aforesaid case can readily serve as a guide in the case at bar. In this regard, I feel quite sure myself that the plaintiff representing himself will be able to present his case satisfactorily if he is heard by a judge in a telephone conference call; and that accordingly the interests of justice will be well served.
O R D E R
[10] Consequently, THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be heard by means of a telephone conference call at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 24, 2002 and that the Mission Institution be required to provide the plaintiff with all the necessary facilities to allow him to make his observations at the time of the hearing and to do so with complete confidentiality.
|
Pierre Blais Judge |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 7, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: T-2218-00
STYLE OF CAUSE:Pierre-Paul Poulin v. The Attorney General of Canada
WRITTEN MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: Blais J.
DATED: November 7, 2001
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Pierre-Paul Poulin FOR HIMSELF
Marie Crowley FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pierre-Paul Poulin FOR HIMSELF
Mission, British Columbia
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada