PENITENTIARIES |
Ayotte v. Canada (Attorney General)
A-702-02
2003 FCA 429, Létourneau J.A.
14/11/03
10 pp.
Appeal by Patrick Ayotte (appellant) against decision of disciplinary court (court) of Drummond Institution finding him guilty of offence under Corrections and Conditional Release Act (Act), s. 40(l) (failing to provide urine sample) --Whether court erred in finding principles set out in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 do not apply in context of disciplinary court--If so, whether such error warrants setting aside sentence and ordering new hearing--Appellant had to provide urine sample for analysis--To facilitate providing sample, appellant drank glass of water given--Appellant did not provide requested sample within allotted time of two hours--At hearing, appellant claimed to really want to provide sample, but unable to do so after several attempts--According to Kinder v. MacDonald, [1987] 3 F.C. 34 (C.A.), chairperson of disciplinary court has obligation to act fairly in conducting proceedings--Principles laid down in R. v. W.(D.), are much more than just model directions for jury in criminal case-- Rule of law applicable to all judges and all tribunals called on to assess and weigh evidence when law requires satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of accused's guilt--Decision- maker's obligation to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of accused's guilt as well as onus imposed on complainant or on prosecutor to provide such evidence inextricably linked to presumption of innocence--In case at bar, to be culpable, act or omission with which appellant charged must be voluntary--Appellant maintained that refusal or omission involuntary--Chairperson of disciplinary court did not make any determination on defence--Could dismiss defence advanced by appellant, but could not disregard defence in light of evidence submitted--Motions judge should have expressed disapproval over court's two failures to consider important and relevant elements of proceedings, having effect of depriving appellant of full and fair hearing--Disciplinary court content to make inappropriate equation between appellant's guilt and absence of credibility, thereby altering standard of proof required by Act to support guilty verdict-- Appeal allowed--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 40(l).