Fortin v. Canada ( Head, Donnacona Institution )
T-2052-95
Teitelbaum J.
30/1/97
16 pp.
Application for judicial review of respondent's decision to deny applicant's application for transfer to Archambault Institution-Since January 4, 1985, applicant serving third term of imprisonment in federal penitentiary following convictions of offences of robbery with possession and use of firearm, and possession of narcotics-Unasked for transfer to Donnacona in March 1995-While inmate at Donnacona, applicant applying for day parole and full parole-National Parole Board (NPB) dismissing his application-On August 9, 1995, applicant applying for transfer to Archambault, a medium-security institution-Respondent, as Donnacona Warden, denying applicant's application for transfer-On September 29, 1995, applicant filing originating notice of motion to quash respondent's decision-Question whether adequate alternative remedy applicant should have used before applying to Court for prerogative writ-Where statutory or internal remedy, decision to grant writ of certiorari discretionary-In case at bar, inmate grievance procedure available to applicant-Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 90, Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, ss. 74 to 82, and Commissioner's Directives Nos. 540 and 81 set out inmate grievance procedure applicable here-In principle, individual must exhaust alternate or internal remedies before applying to Court for prerogative writ-Decision to transfer inmate purely administrative-Correctional Service of Canada must nonetheless observe rules of procedural fairness, natural justice in arriving at such decision-Natural justice, or duty to act fairly recognizing inmates have right to know gist of allegations against them to allow preparation of coherent response-In case of denial of voluntary transfer, natural justice not requiring exhaustive summary of reasons, disciplinary tribunal or criminal proceedings-Applicant could have put forward defence to respondent's decision and challenged procedure and sources of information used by respondent, as he did in affidavit-Could have challenged notice of decision indicating involved in two escape conspiracy cases instead of one-Phrase "still has maximum", second aspect of respondent's reasons, not entirely satisfactory-As justification for applicant's "still maximum" security classification, respondent relied upon his negative, aggressive attitude to persons responsible for his work and his non-involvement in institutional programs since arriving at Donnacona-Respondent's reasons did not represent flagrant breach of natural justice-Alternate remedy in case at bar (grievance procedure laid down in Regulations and Commissioner's Directives) adequate-Detailed procedure existed for redress of inmate complaints, grievances-Applicant has not exhausted necessary alternative remedies-Application for judicial review premature, inadmissible-Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 90-Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, ss. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82.