|
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA). Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General) (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered habeas corpus where prisoners applied to transfer to lower-security prisons but were denied. In these quotes the court summarizes aspects of the federal prison system's 'security classification framework':B. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK
[12] The Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”) classifies each offender as minimum, medium, or maximum security in accordance with ss. 17 and 18 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620 (“CCRR”) under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (“CCRA”). Offenders classified as either medium or maximum security must be reassessed every two years.
[13] Section 28 of the CCRA requires CSC to ensure that each offender receives the least restrictive classification and is placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate in the offender’s circumstances based on several relevant factors:28. If a person is or is to be confined in a penitentiary, the Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the penitentiary in which they are confined is one that provides them with the least restrictive environment for that person, taking into account
(a) the degree and kind of custody and control necessary for
(i) the safety of the public,
(ii) the safety of that person and other persons in the penitentiary, and
(iii) the security of the penitentiary;
(b) accessibility to
(i) the person’s home community and family,
(ii) a compatible cultural environment, and
(iii) a compatible linguistic environment; and
(c) the availability of appropriate programs and services and the person’s willingness to participate in those programs. [14] Under the CCRR, an inmate can grieve a reclassification decision with which they disagree. If the grievance process is not resolved to the inmate’s satisfaction, they can then appeal to the Commissioner of Corrections (or to a senior CSC staff member on the Commissioner’s behalf): ss. 74-82. And, of course, an inmate can subsequently seek judicial review in the Federal Court, which was not pursued in this case by either appellant. . Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Parole Board)
In Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Canada (Parole Board) (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a JR of a Parole Board of Canada decision to refuse access to audio recordings of several parole hearings. In these quotes the court resolves the complex statutory issue by (unconvincing) resort to the Privacy Act [s.8(2)(m)(i)], where the public interest in the hearings is weighed with the privacy interests of the offenders:[71] Provision does exist for the disclosure of personal information in certain circumstances, notably under paragraph 8(2)(m) of the Privacy Act, which I reproduce once more for the sake of convenience:8 (2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed
8 (2) Sous réserve d’autres lois fédérales, la communication des renseignements personnels qui relèvent d’une institution fédérale est autorisée dans les cas suivants :
...
(m) for any purpose where, in the opinion of the head of the institution,
(m) communication à toute autre fin dans les cas où, de l’avis du responsable de l’institution :
(i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or
(i) des raisons d’intérêt public justifieraient nettement une éventuelle violation de la vie privée,
(ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates. ....
[89] As a result, I would allow the appeal from the Federal Court, set aside the Federal Court’s judgment, and allow the CBC’s application for judicial review and set aside the Board’s decision. Making the order that the Federal Court should have made, I would order:1)That the matter be returned to the Parole Board of Canada for reconsideration on the basis that the weighing of interests contemplated in subparagraph 8(2)(m)(i) of the Privacy Act must be undertaken with respect to each request on the basis of the considerations set out in paragraphs 77 to 84 of these reasons; ...
|
