Ouellet v. Canada (Attorney General)

Ouellet v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2003-01-13
Neutral citation
2003 FCA 13
File numbers
A-37-02
Decision Content
Date: 20030113
Docket: A-37-02
Montréal, Quebec, January 13, 2003
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIERJ.A.
BETWEEN:
ADRIEN OUELLET
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
Date: 20030113
Docket: A-37-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 13
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ADRIEN OUELLET
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on January 13, 2003.
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on January 13, 2003.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 20030113
Docket: A-37-02
Neutral Citation: 2003 FCA 13
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ADRIEN OUELLET
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec,
on January 13, 2003.)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] The appellant was serving a two-year sentence for impaired driving offences. These are not "offence[s] involving violence" within the meaning of subsection 126(7) and Schedule I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (the Act). In fact, Schedule I covers only impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.
[2] The National Parole Board (the Board) refused to release the appellant because, in its view, there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was likely to commit "an offence involving violence" within the meaning of section 126 of the Act.
[3] The appellant appealed to the Appeal Division under section 147 of the Act. The Appeal Division upheld the decision.
[4] The role of the Board is to verify not the risk of recidivism itself, but the risk that the inmate's behaviour, including recidivism, will lead him to commit an offence that would involve violence within the meaning of subsection 126(7) and Schedule I. Such behaviour may be assessed on the facts, for example and as in this case from the fact that the inmate "has minimized his drinking problem", "shows little awareness of the impact of his alcohol consumption" and has committed crimes of the same kind at least ten times, despite repeated hospitalizations and treatment for alcoholism.
[5] We agree that the reasons of the Board and the Appeal Division were written somewhat awkwardly, insofar as they may give the impression that impaired driving is an offence involving violence within the meaning of subsection 126(7) and Schedule I. However, that impression is without merit, as Mr. Justice Blanchard concluded at paragraph 19 of his reasons:
[19] Although the offences committed by the plaintiff are not mentioned in Schedule I, it is not unreasonable in my opinion for the NPB to conclude, based on the factors to which it referred in its decision, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff is likely to commit a Schedule I offence before the expiry of his sentence.
[6] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
Certified true translation
Mary Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-37-02
Appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division dated December 19, 2001, in docket T-1476-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: ADRIEN OUELLET
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 13, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DÉCARY
CONCURRED IN BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER
DATED: January 13, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Daniel Royer FOR THE APPELLANT
Nadia Hudon FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Labelle, Boudrault, Côté et Associés
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT