[2013] 2 F.C.R. D-7
Parole
Appeal from Federal Court decision (2012 FC 284) dismissing application for judicial review of decision of National Parole Board Appeal Division affirming Board decision denying appellant’s day parole, parole under Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (CCRA)—Appellant given two concurrent life sentences for murder—Eligible for day parole, parole after serving 25 years’ imprisonment—Board finding certain expectations of appellant set out in previous decision not fully realized, appellant presenting unacceptable risk to re-offend—Appellant arguing Federal Court neither identifying nor correcting errors of law committed by Board, not considering length of appellant’s imprisonment in assessment of risk to society (Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385); not applying least restrictive measure possible consistent with protection of society (Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, 2004 SCC 21, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 528); not considering all relevant information appellant wishing to submit (Mooring v. Canada (National Parole Board), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75)—Whether Federal Court erring considering (1) Steele, (2) Pinet, (3) Mooring, by deciding Board applying correct legal tests in disposing of appellant’s parole application—(1) Appellant misunderstanding scope of Steele—Distinction to be made between life imprisonment, as in this or unusual punishment under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 12, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C. (1985), Appendix II, No. 44]—Criteria set out under Parole Act version in effect at time subject of comments of Supreme Court in Steele—Supreme Court not identifying criterion of maximum benefit of imprisonment as condition of constitutional validity of Parole Board’s assessment—Criteria adopted by Supreme Court now set out in CCRA, s. 102—Steele not limiting criteria Parliament may select in guiding Board in exercising discretion to grant parole—(2) Given Board’s finding appellant presenting risk of re-offending unacceptable to society, Board not to consider principle of least restrictive determination—(3) Mooring not imposing on Board obligation to consider all elements submitted to Board, rather allowing Board to consider information otherwise perhaps not admissible—Board must consider relevant information relating to criteria guiding Board’s decision—As Canadian case law seeming silent on how to hear case of offender claiming innocence, refusing to take steps to rectify criminal conduct, principles established by courts of United Kingdom considered in this case—Board basing decision on criteria enshrined in CCRA, following criteria taking into account information submitted, including information from appellant during investigation—No overriding error made by Board in that regard—Appeal dismissed.
Ouellette v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-105-12, 2013 FCA 54, Mainville J.A., judgment dated March 5, 2013, 32 pp.)