A-16-81
Jack Dalton Meldrum (Appellant) (Applicant)
v.
National Parole Board (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Heald JJ. and Ver-
chere D.J.—Calgary, May 25, 1981.
Judicial review — Practice — Motion to quash s. 28
application brought against the decision of the National
Parole Board to revoke the applicant's parole — Whether or
not Board's decision is an administrative decision which is not
required by law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial
basis — Motion granted — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970
(2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28 — Parole Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-2, s.
11 as amended by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1977, S.C.
1976-77, c. 53, s. 26 — Parole Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, Vol.
XIII, c. 1249, s. 20(2).
Howarth v. National Parole Board [1976] 1 S.C.R. 453,
followed.
MOTION.
COUNSEL:
A. Park for appellant (applicant).
B. Saunders for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Barron, McBain, Calgary, 'for appellant
(applicant).
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: This is a motion to quash a section
28 application brought against the decision of the
National Parole Board to revoke the parole of the
applicant, Jack Dalton Meldrum.
The motion is made on the ground that the
decision of the National Parole Board revoking the
parole of the applicant is not a decision which is
reviewable under section 28 of the Federal Court
Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, since it is an
administrative decision which is not required by
law to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial
basis. In support of the motion, reference was
made to the decision of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Howarth v. National Parole Board
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 453.
Counsel for the applicant conceded that his
application would have to be quashed if the law
had remained unchanged since the Howarth case.
He argued, however, that the amendment of sec
tion 11 of the Parole Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-2, by
section 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1977, S.C. 1976-77, c. 53, and the new Regulation
20(2) [Parole Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, Vol.
XIII, c. 1249] that was adopted pursuant to that
amendment had changed the nature of the decision
of the Board into a quasi-judicial decision.
We are all of opinion that this argument must
be rejected. In our view, the mere fact that, under
the new Regulation 20(2), an inmate is now en
titled to request and be given a hearing when his
case is referred to the Board pursuant to subsec
tion 16(3) of the Act does not warrant the conclu
sion that the decision of the Board to revoke a
parole is now required by law to be made on a
judicial or quasi-judicial basis.
The motion will therefore be granted and the
section 28 application will be quashed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.