Condo v. Canada (Attorney General)

Condo v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-01-23
Neutral citation
2003 FCT 60
File numbers
T-33-03
Decision Content
Date: 20030123
Docket: T-33-03
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCT 60
Between:
RICHARD CONDO
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
This is a motion on behalf of the applicant for a mandatory interlocutory order enjoining the respondent to release him from administrative segregation and to keep him in the general population at La Macaza Institution until such time as the decision on the within application for judicial review is reached. The motion also seeks an order expediting the hearing of the application for judicial review and costs on a solicitor-to-client basis.
The parties disagree on the seriousness or the validity of the reasons which led to his confinement in administrative segregation and, as a result, the loss of his residual liberty.
The impugned administrative decision, dated January 8, 2003, was made pursuant to paragraph 31(3)(a) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20. The provision, the constitutionality of which is not under attack, reads:
31. (3) The institutional head may order that an inmate be confined in administrative segregation if the institutional head believes on reasonable grounds
(a) that
(i) the inmate has acted, has attempted to act or intends to act in a manner that jeopardizes the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person, and
(ii) the continued presence of the inmate in the general inmate population would jeopardize the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person;
31. (3) Le directeur du pénitencier peut, s'il est convaincu qu'il n'existe aucune autre solution valable, ordonner l'isolement préventif d'un détenu lorsqu'il a des motifs raisonnables de croire, selon le cas :
a) que celui-ci a agi, tenté d'agir ou a l'intention d'agir d'une manière compromettant la sécurité d'une personne ou du pénitencier et que son maintien parmi les autres détenus mettrait en danger cette sécurité;
As the applicant has not filed a grievance with respect to the decision to place him into administrative segregation, I am of the view that his failure to exhaust the internal remedies available to him prior to commencing his application for judicial review is, in itself, a sufficient reason to dismiss the motion.
In Giesbrecht v. Canada et al. (1998), 148 F.T.R. 81, Mr. Justice Rothstein wrote:
[10] On its face, the legislative scheme providing for grievances is an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review. Grievances are to be handled expeditiously and time limits are provided in the Commissioner's Directives. There is no suggestion that the process is costly. If anything it is less costly than judicial review and more simple and straightforward. Through the grievance procedure an inmate may appeal a decision on the merits and an appeal tribunal may substitute its decision for that of the tribunal appealed from. Judicial review does not deal with the merits and a favourable result to an inmate would simply return the matter for redetermination to the tribunal appealed from.
[. . .]
[14] There is nothing before the Court that would indicate that the internal grievance procedure under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Regulations is not an adequate remedy to judicial review. Of course judicial review would be available from a final decision in the grievance process.
Applying the ratio mentioned above in the case at bar, I consider that the grievance procedure, in the particular circumstances of this case, is an adequate alternative remedy which the applicant ought to have first exhausted. His failure to do so, therefore, is also a failure to establish the existence of a serious issue, which is sufficient to deny the interlocutory relief sought, without the necessity of dealing any further with the present motion.
Consequently, the motion is dismissed, with costs.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 23, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-33-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: RICHARD CONDO v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: January 21, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
DATED: January 23, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Me Diane Magas FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Sébastien Gagné FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Magas Law Office FOR THE APPLICANT
Ottawa, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Date: 20030123
Docket: T-33-03
Ottawa, Ontario, this 23rd day of January, 2003
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
RICHARD CONDO
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
UPON motion on behalf of the applicant for a mandatory interlocutory order enjoining the respondent to release the applicant from administrative segregation and to keep him in the general population at La Macaza Institution until such time as the decision on the within application for judicial review is reached; an order expediting the hearing of this application for judicial review; and costs, on a solicitor-client basis.
ORDER
The motion is dismissed, with costs.
JUDGE