Extract
Canada v. Grenier, 2005 FCA 348 (2005)
Date: 20051027
Docket: A-596-04Citation: 2005 FCA 348CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.LÉTOURNEAU J.A.NOËL J.A.BETWEEN:HER MAJESTY THE QUEENAppellantandDANIEL GRENIERRespondentHearing held at Québec, Quebec, on October 18, 2005.Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 27, 2005.REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A.CONCURRING: DÉCARY J.A.NOËL J.A.Date: 20051027Docket: A-596-04Citation: 2005 FCA 348CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.LÉTOURNEAU J.A.NOËL J.A.BETWEEN:HER MAJESTY THE QUEENAppellantandDANIEL GRENIERRespondentREASONS FOR JUDGMENTLÉTOURNEAU J.A.[1] Should an inmate directly challenge an institutional head's decision affecting him by way of judicial review, or may the inmate choose to disregard that procedure and attack it collaterally by means of an action in damages?[2] As we will see in the course of these reasons, the question is important, albeit not new. It has been posed more than once. The replies it has been given were sometimes hesitant, sometimes divergent, sometimes deferred. In Her Majesty The Queen in the Right of Canada, B.S. Warna and D.A. Hall v. Budisukma Puncak Sendirian Berhad, Maritime Consortium Management Sendirian Berhad , [2005] F.C.A. 267, at paragraph 59 ( Berhad ), this Court stated that the question was not definitively resolved and remained open for determination in a subsequent case. The time has now come to answer it, and positively.Context in which the question is raised in this case[3] The respondent is an inmate in the Donnacona maximum security penitentiary. This institution is administered by the Correctional Service of Canada under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , S.C. 1992, c. 20 (the Act) and the Regulations Respecting Corrections and the Conditional Release and Detention of Offenders , SOR/92-620 (the Regulations).[4] On May 29, 1998, he was involved in an incident in which he threw the forms he was holding in his hand at a correctional officer. The action was perceived as a threat and an attempt to strike the officer. Some of the officer's co-workers intervened immediately and the respondent was returned to his cell.[5] Considering the circumstances of time, place, and manner, the institutional head felt the incident was serious. He concluded it was necessary to place the respondent in administrative segregation for a period of 14 days.[6] A disciplinary offence report was written up. A charge of [ translation ] "creating a disturbance or any other activity that is likely to jeopardize the security of the penitentiary" was laid against ...See the full content of this document
If you are already a vLex customer, access here