PENITENTIARIES |
Lapierre v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-874-02
2003 FCT 545, Blanchard J.
2/5/03
9 pp.
Judicial review of disciplinary court of the Donnacona Penitentiary decision finding applicant guilty of disciplinary offence (refusal to provide urine sample when suspected of having taken drugs) and imposing appropriate penalty-- Whether tribunal chairperson erred in law or rendered patently unreasonable decision by considering that person's eyes glazed, smell of drugs in room where with three other persons constituted grounds to believe particular individual had consumed alcohol or drugs--Application dismissed--R. v. Pierre Bergevin, Laval Municipal Court, District of Laval, No. 0080134-877 distinguished: tribunal therein found that smell of drugs in suspect's vehicle and fact his eyes were glazed not sufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe suspect had controlled substance in his possession--Situation and environment of person in prison quite different from that of person not in prison-- Accordingly, control of disciplinary conduct of individual in prison necessarily different from that which may be applied to person enjoying freedom--In case at bar, officers had, under Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 54, reasonable grounds to believe inmate had committed offence and that urine sample necessary to provide evidence of offence-- Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 54.