PENITENTIARIES |
Durie v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-322-00
2001 FCT 22, McKeown J.
5/2/01
4 pp.
Judicial review of decision of Independent Chairperson presiding at Inmate Disciplinary Court at Bath Institution finding applicant guilty of failing or refusing to provide urine sample upon demand pursuant to Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 40(l)--Applicant unable to provide sample even though given more than two hours--In finding applicant guilty, Independent Chairperson stating applicant raised reasonable doubt, but standard imposed on Independent Chairperson higher; excuse must be provided with justification, either medical or some kind of documentation--Application allowed--Standard of review patent unreasonableness--Onus of proof on prosecutor in inmate disciplinary hearings--Shifts to accused when respondent showing offence taking place, applicant offering lawful excuse--Chairperson erred in requiring medical evidence and/or documentation--Applicant entitled to offer evidence on lawful excuse; Chairperson should weigh evidence, determine whether constituting lawful excuse--Applicant not required to produce medical evidence or documentary evidence, but may be in his interest to do so--No standard type of evidence required by law--S. 43(3) providing person conducting hearing shall not find inmate guilty unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt inmate committed disciplinary offence--Not necessary to return matter for re-hearing as Chairperson already decided reasonable doubt herein--To subsequently find applicant guilty serious injustice--One of rare cases where exercise of judicial discretion in relation to inmate disciplinary matters warranted--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 40(l), 43(3).