Collins v. Canada (Attorney General), (2014) 454 F.T.R. 106 (FC)

• Judge: Boivin, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 20, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 454 F.T.R. 106 (FC);2014 FC 439

Collins v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 454 F.T.R. 106 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.020

Peter Collins (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-2243-12; 2014 FC 439; 2014 CF 439)

Indexed As: Collins v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Boivin, J.

May 7, 2014.

Summary:

Collins was serving a life sentence for the first degree murder of a police officer. He became eligible for day parole in 2005 and full parole in 2008. The Parole Board of Canada denied him parole several times, the last being in 2012, because he was found to pose an undue risk. The Appeal Division upheld the Board's decision. Collins applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 9026

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction - Loss of - By fettering of discretion - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5670.9 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 646.3

Liberty - Limitations on - Parole and long-term supervision orders - [See Civil Rights - Topic 686 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 686

Liberty - Principles of fundamental justice - Deprivation of - What constitutes - Collins was serving a life sentence for first degree murder - The Parole Board of Canada denied him parole in 2012 because he was found to pose an undue risk - Collins applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board acted arbitrarily and contrary to s. 7 of the Charter by concluding that Collins had to be transferred to a minimum-security institution before obtaining parole - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Board's decision was reasonable - Denying parole was merely a modification of an existing sentence and did not constitute, in and of itself, a deprivation of liberty - The fact that all of Collins' attempts to attain a gradual and structured release had been denied so far and were likely to be denied in the future did not mean that he was deprived of his right to liberty in violation of the Charter - See paragraphs 64 to 66.

Criminal Law - Topic 5670.9

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Judicial review or appeal - Collins, a citizen of the United Kingdom, was serving a life sentence for first degree murder - The Parole Board of Canada denied him parole in 2012 because he was found to pose an undue risk - The Board noted that because of Collins' deportable status, day parole would result in his deportation to the UK and unconditional release - Since other forms of gradual release such as unescorted temporary absences were not available to him, the only option that could render his risk in the community more manageable would be to transfer him to a minimum-security prison - Collins applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board unlawfully fettered its own discretion by reading in the requirement of a gradual and structured release prior to granting parole - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Board's decision was based on the criteria in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, namely the protection of the public by not releasing Collins while he still presented an undue risk and by facilitating his reintegration into society - It failed to fetter its discretion in any way - See paragraphs 55 to 60.

Criminal Law - Topic 5670.9

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Judicial review or appeal - Collins was serving a life sentence for first degree murder - The Parole Board of Canada denied him parole in 2012 because he was found to pose an undue risk - The Board noted that Collins' case management team (CMT) was initially supportive of a transfer to a minimum-security institution, but because of recent security intelligence which indicated that Collins was a person of interest in an ongoing criminal investigation, the CMT had withdrawn their support for the transfer - Collins applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board did not conduct its own analysis of his situation and unduly deferred to the CMT's recommendation - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Board gave weight to the CMT's withdrawal of support for Collins' transfer to a medium-security facility, but nevertheless conducted its own analysis of the issue before it, which was whether or not to grant parole - The Board's decision to deny parole was ultimately based on its assessment of Collins' risk - Since the Board did not have the power to order a transfer to a minimum-security institution, the CMT's recommendation was, in practice, determinative regarding the prospect of a transfer at the time of the hearing - See paragraphs 61 and 62.

Cases Noticed:

Cartier v. Canada (Procureur général) (2002), 300 N.R. 362; 2002 FCA 384, refd to. [para. 36].

Scott v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 369 F.T.R. 162; 2010 FC 496, refd to. [para. 36].

Latimer v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 372 F.T.R. 110; 2010 FC 806, refd to. [para. 36].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 37].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 37].

Steele v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 407 F.T.R. 146; 2012 FC 380, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Gill (R.), (2012), 295 O.A.C. 345; 2012 ONCA 607, refd to. [para. 41].

Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791; 335 N.R. 25; 2005 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 41].

Sfetkopoulos et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 323 F.T.R. 146; 2008 FC 33, refd to. [para. 41].

Pimparé v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 411 F.T.R. 177; 2012 FC 48, refd to. [para. 48].

Pearce v. Parole Board of Canada (2012), 416 F.T.R. 21; 2012 FC 923, refd to. [para. 49].

Collier v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 424; 2006 FC 728, refd to. [para. 52].

Reid v. National Parole Board et al. (2002), 222 F.T.R. 81; 2002 FCT 741, refd to. [para. 52].

Counsel:

Paul Quick, for the applicant;

Peter Nostbakken, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ellacott Law Office, Kingston, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Kingston, Ontario, on March 20, 2014, before Boivin, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 7, 2014.