Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2016Unreviewed source text

Swift v. Canada (Attorney General)

2016 FCA 43
AdministrativeJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing unreviewed source text. Provenance under review — verify against the linked original before relying on it.

Source text

Swift v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2016-02-08 Neutral citation 2016 FCA 43 Decision Content Date: 20160208 Docket: A­576­14 Citation: 2016 FCA 43 CORAM: NOËL C.J. SCOTT J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: MICHEAL SWIFT Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2016. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2016. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SCOTT J.A. Date: 20160208 Docket: A­576­14 Citation: 2016 FCA 43 CORAM: NOËL C.J. SCOTT J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: MICHEAL SWIFT Appellant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2016.) SCOTT J.A. [1] Despite the detailed presentation by the appellant’s counsel, to the effect that Madam Justice Bédard (the Judge) made several errors when she dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision rendered on February 26, 2014 by an independent chairperson elected under the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92­620, we have not been convinced. [2] The independent chairperson found the appellant guilty of a serious offence when he triggered the emergency alarm in his cell without a valid reason. We are not satisfied that our intervention is warranted because the Judge correctly identified the applicable standards of review and did not err in applying them when she conclud…

Read full judgment (source text)

Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.

Swift v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2016-02-08
Neutral citation
2016 FCA 43
Decision Content
Date: 20160208
Docket: A­576­14
Citation: 2016 FCA 43
CORAM:
NOËL C.J.
SCOTT J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHEAL SWIFT
Appellant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2016.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2016.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
SCOTT J.A.
Date: 20160208
Docket: A­576­14
Citation: 2016 FCA 43
CORAM:
NOËL C.J.
SCOTT J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHEAL SWIFT
Appellant
And
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 8, 2016.)
SCOTT J.A.
[1] Despite the detailed presentation by the appellant’s counsel, to the effect that Madam Justice Bédard (the Judge) made several errors when she dismissed his application for judicial review of a decision rendered on February 26, 2014 by an independent chairperson elected under the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92­620, we have not been convinced.
[2] The independent chairperson found the appellant guilty of a serious offence when he triggered the emergency alarm in his cell without a valid reason. We are not satisfied that our intervention is warranted because the Judge correctly identified the applicable standards of review and did not err in applying them when she concluded that the independent chairperson conducted his investigation in a fair and reasonable manner.
[3] Nor is our intervention warranted as to costs.
[4] The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.
«A.F. Scott»
J.A.
Translation
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
A­576­14
STYLE OF CAUSE:
MICHEAL SWIFT v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING:
Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:
February 8, 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
NOËL C.J.
SCOTT J.A.
DE MONTIGNY J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:
SCOTT J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Hugues Surprenant
For the Appellant
Dominique Guimond
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Surprenant, Magloé, Golmier Avocats
Montréal, Quebec
For the Appellant
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases