Date : 19990222
Docket : T-1597-98
Between:
VASILE COSTIUC,
Plaintiff,
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Defendant.
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review from a decision by the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board ("Appeal Division") dated July 8, 1998 affirming the decision of the National Parole Board ("NPB") at first instance denying the plaintiff full parole for deportation.
[2] The plaintiff is a Roumanian national. He stated that he had been persecuted for political reasons in Roumania. He arrived in Quebec on February 4, 1994 and applied for refugee status. He lived in Canada for a year and a half before being arrested.
[3] On January 12, 1996, the plaintiff was sentenced to a term of six years" imprisonment for serious personal torts: manslaughter, assault with a weapon and threats of death and injury. He was under the effect of alcohol when these crimes were committed. As to the manslaughter, he stabbed his victim twice around the heart and lungs. In the assaults and threats, he put a knife to his victim's throat and told him he was going to cut his throat.
[4] The plaintiff filed a parole application which the NPB received on January 20, 1997. The hearing was held on December 23, 1997 and was rejected the same day.
[5] The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Appeal Division on the ground that the NPB had infringed a rule of natural justice by not supplying him with the services of a Roumanian interpreter and had based its decision on erroneous or incomplete information. The Appeal Division dismissed his appeal on the two grounds alleged.
POINTS AT ISSUE
| 1. Did the Appeal Division err in not finding that the plaintiff's right to procedural fairness had been infringed at the hearing before the NPB? |
| 2. Did the Appeal Division err in concluding that the NPB's assessment of the risk was reasonably supported by the facts? |
ANALYSIS
[6] The Appeal Division's function is to ensure that the NPB has complied with the Act and its
policies and has observed the rules of natural justice and that its decisions are based on relevant and reliable information. It is only where its findings are manifestly unreasonable that the intervention of this Court is warranted.
(1) Right to interpreter
[7] Under s. 149(9) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act ("the Act"),1 an offender is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter if he or she does not have a sufficient knowledge of one or the other official languages of Canada. In the case at bar a review of the record showed that in the institutional admission documents dated January 13, 1996 the plaintiff indicated French as his spoken and written language, and also as the language of a hearing, without qualification. He asked that his hearing be held in French. He never objected to this manner of proceeding. According to the members of the Appeal Division, the tape of the hearing before the NPB did not in any way show that the plaintiff experienced difficulties understanding or speaking French. In fact, the plaintiff never expressed a desire for the services of an interpreter. A careful reading of the documents referred to and the transcript of the hearing confirmed that the plaintiff had an adequate knowledge of French. There is no doubt that the Appeal Division's decision was correct on this point.
(2) Assessment of risk
[8] It was up to the NPB to weigh the evidence and draw its own conclusions. As I indicated
earlier, the Appeal Division had to ensure that its decision was based on relevant and reliable information.
[9] The NPB took the plaintiff's prison record into consideration in arriving at its decision. It noted that:
| [TRANSLATION] |
| The needs that were identified at the time of your committal were numerous and the risk you represented was high. As such, despite quite unobjectionable conduct while in the institution we cannot see any significant stable and lasting change that could be proportional to the gravity of the acts committed.2 |
[10] This conclusion was based primarily on a recent assessment by Ms. Perreault, the psychologist, who indicated in her report of November 25, 1997:
| [TRANSLATION] |
| The psychologist considers that Mr. Costiuc adopted a dismissive attitude to the offences of which he was convicted. She notes that the subject maintained his defensive posture and his perceptions were based on mistrust. Ms. Perreault notes that the subject did not exhibit the signs of an anti-social personality, but rather of a profound pathology resulting from the environment and the circumstances in which he has lived. Finally, the report indicates the significant influence of the subject's intoxicated condition on the commission of the offence. |
| In short, the specialist considers that the changes are somewhat limited and Mr. Costiuc's defences impeded any analysis and introspection. The question of the prognosis for aggressive potential was not considered. However, she agrees with the favourable recommendation of the CMT. |
[11] Although she agreed with the recommendation of the case management team on Mr. Costiuc's parole, she still considered that the changes had been somewhat limited since his imprisonment. There was thus relevant evidence on which the NPB based its decision, as the Appeal Division found. Accordingly, it made no error of fact on this point.
[12] As to counsel for the plaintiff's argument that the NPB had based its decision on incomplete information, since it did not have all the information on the plaintiff in Roumania, this argument was also dismissed by the Appeal Division. The latter found that the NPB had to base its decision on all the available information in the record.
[13] In the case at bar, the NPB simply mentioned the lack of information regarding the plaintiff's criminal record. Its decision was not based on this incomplete information. It drew no negative inferences from it. It was a neutral factor which it only mentioned. The plaintiff suffered no detriment as a result.
[14] In short, the assessment of the risk by the NPB was based on relevant information. The NPB had no duty to approve the case management team's recommendation. It had to make its own assessment. Since the evidence and the record supported its decision it was based on fact, as the Appeal Division found. I cannot conclude that such a decision was patently unreasonable.
[15] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
| Danièle Tremblay-Lamer JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
| February 22, 1999. |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier, LL. B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No: T-1597-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Vasile Costiuc v. Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 16, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Tremblay-Lamer J.
DATED: February 22, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Royer for the plaintiff
Eric Lafrenière for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Ass. for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________