Currie v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al., (2006) 407 A.R. 275 (QB)

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 407 A.R. 275 (QB);2006 ABQB 858

Currie v. Edmonton Remand Centre (2006), 407 A.R. 275 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. DE.070

Jessie Currie (applicant) v. The Director of the Edmonton Remand Centre and the Disciplinary Board of the Edmonton Remand Centre (respondents)

(0402 86833X1)

De Trang, Tuan Quoc Trang, Binh Quoc Trang, Cuong Quoc Trang, Thao Mai Dao, James Edward Mah, Man Kit Chan, Alex Hang Chan, Donald Cheung, Vi Quoc Tang, Tien Lai Lam, Long Nguyen, Jerry Nguyen, Thi Hoang Le, Joseph Vincent Kochan, Anh Le Tran, Josephine Soo Yun Voon, Hiep Quang Le, Rocky Allan Simmons, Phong Huy Tran, Adrian Tiburcio Vergara, Vu Hang Trinh, Helen Hoang Nguyen, Bao Minh Tran and Willy T. Lau (applicants) v. The Director of the Edmonton Remand Centre, the Director of Court and Prisoner Services and the Director of Security Operations Branch (respondents) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (intervenor)

(0160 33268U1; 2006 ABQB 858)

Indexed As: Currie v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

December 1, 2006.

Summary:

Inmates challenged provisions of the Alberta Corrections Act and Correctional Institution Regulations as violating their rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The inmates sought a declaration that the challenged provisions were, pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, of no force and effect. The challenged provisions empowered the director of provincial correctional institutions to appoint correctional officers to conduct inmate disciplinary hearings and gave him an unfettered discretion to reverse any disciplinary decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the disciplinary boards, as constituted, violated an inmate's liberty and security of the person interests (Charter, s. 7), as the boards lacked the required independence and there was institutional bias and lack of impartiality. Pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, the challenged provisions were declared to be of no force and effect. The court suggested that inmate disciplinary hearings be chaired by an independent chairperson who was legally trained.

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Institutional or systemic bias - [See Civil Rights - Topic 646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 646

Liberty - Limitations on - Prisoners and imprisonment - Challenged provisions of the Corrections Act (Alta.) and Correctional Institution Regulations empowered the director of provincial correctional institutions to appoint correctional officers to conduct inmate disciplinary hearings and gave him an unfettered discretion to reverse any disciplinary decision - Section 11(d) of the Charter, which guaranteed independent and impartial tribunals, did not apply, but the inmates submitted that an independent and impartial hearing was required under their s. 7 Charter right not to be deprived of life, liberty and security of the person - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench conceded that maintaining prison discipline and order required expeditious and informal hearings - The federal penitentiary system provided for an independent chairperson for a disciplinary hearing, but none of the provinces did so - The court held that the presently constituted disciplinary boards violated s. 7, as the boards lacked the required independence and there was institutional bias and lack of impartiality - The court stated that "there is such a clear conflict between the duty of staff members of a disciplinary board in Alberta's correctional centres to maintain discipline and staff morale and the right of the prisoner to have his charges dealt with before a tribunal with a sufficient degree of independence and impartiality, that both the perception of lack of independence and bias and the fact (as proved in evidence) that in a substantial number of cases (almost all cases where there is a conflict between the evidence of correctional officers and that of inmates) there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. While training the board members in administrative law will assist in achieving procedural fairness, it cannot remove the inevitable bias in favour of the evidence of correctional officers. Giving prisoners the right to counsel and the presence of counsel at the hearings will help to achieve procedural fairness, but it will not overcome the reasonable apprehension of bias. The strong suggestion of the Applicants that the only solution is that of an independent (and possibly legally trained) chairperson, as in the federal system is persuasive ...".

Civil Rights - Topic 1362

Security of the person - Institutional inmates - Disciplinary hearings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 646 ].

Prisons - Topic 1610

Discipline - Inmates - Disciplinary hearing - Disciplinary board (incl. composition of) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 646 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres.

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 31].

Howard v. Stony Mountain Institution Inmate Disciplinary Court (Presiding Officer) (1985), 57 N.R. 280; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 195 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Morin v. Saskatoon Correctional Centre et al. (1990), 86 Sask.R. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 36].

Russell et al. v. Radley (1984), 11 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 40].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 43].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43].

Ruffo (Juge) v. Conseil de la magistrature et autres, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 267; 190 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 44].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 47].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 47].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884; 306 N.R. 34, refd to. [para. 49].

Katz v. Vancouver Stock Exchange et al. (1995), 82 B.C.A.C. 16; 133 W.A.C. 16; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 424 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Katz v. Vancouver Stock Exchange et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 405; 207 N.R. 72; 82 B.C.A.C. 29; 133 W.A.C. 29, refd to. [para. 55].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 386, refd to. [para. 56].

Steele v. Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1385; 121 N.R. 198, refd to. [para. 67].

Winters v. Legal Services Society (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 160; 244 N.R. 203; 128 B.C.A.C. 161; 208 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 68].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

May et al. v. Ferndale Institution et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 809; 343 N.R. 69; 220 B.C.A.C. 1; 362 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 70].

Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), 41 L. Ed.2d 935; 418 U.S. 598 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 91].

Smith v. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (Director) (2002), 325 A.R. 90 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 95].

Libo-on v. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (Director) et al. (2004), 362 A.R. 231 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 128].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 137].

Reilly v. Alberta (Provincial Court, Chief Judge) - see Reilly, P.C.J. v. Wachowich, C.J.P.C.

Reilly, P.C.J. v. Wachowich, C.J.P.C. (1999), 234 A.R. 1; 1999 ABQB 309, refd to. [para. 164].

Veysey v. Maplehurst Correctional Complex et al. (2006), 217 O.A.C. 262 (Div. Ct.), dist. [para. 187].

Statutes Noticed:

Corrections Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-29, sect. 15(1) [para. 26].

Authors and Works Noticed:

American Correctional Association, Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions (4th Ed. 2003), p. 66 [para. 17].

Arbour Report - see Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston.

Archambault Commission Report - see Canada, Royal Commission to Investigate the Penal System of Canada, Report of the Royal Commission to Investigate the Penal System of Canada.

Boulerice, Benoit, and Brosseau, Michel, Independent Chairperson Program Evaluation Report (1992), pp. 122, 125 [para. 22].

Canada, House of Commons Sub-Committee on the Penitentiary System in Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Report to Parliament (MacGuigan Report) (1977), pp. 85 [para. 9]; 90, 91 [para. 10].

Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston (Arbour Report) (1996), pp. 192, 193 [para. 13].

Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Disturbances at Kingston Penitentiary (Swackhamer Report) (1973), pp. 52 [para. 4]; 55 [para. 5].

Canada, Royal Commission to Investigate the Penal System of Canada, Report of the Royal Commission to Investigate the Penal System of Canada (Archambault Commission Report) (1938), pp. 61, 62 [para. 3].

Canada, Solicitor General, Report of the Study Group on Dissociation (Vantour Report) (1975), p. 76 [para. 11].

Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Report to Parliament (MacGuigan Report) (1977), pp. 85 [para. 9]; 90, 91 [para. 10].

Coyle, Andrew, A Human Rights Approach for Prison Management: Handbook for Prison Staff (2002), p. 77 [para. 16].

Feeley, Malcolm M., and Rubin, Edward L., Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons (1998), pp. 162, 163 [para. 17].

Hansen, Inger, Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 1973-1974 (1974), pp. 55 [para. 7]; 84 [para. 8].

Harvard Centre for Criminal Justice, Judicial Intervention in Prison Discipline (1972), 63 J. Crim. L.C. & P.S. 200, p. 210 [para. 14].

Jackson, M., Justice Behind the Walls: A Study of the Disciplinary Process in a Canadian Penitentiary (1974), 12 Osgoode Hall L.J. 1, generally [para. 63].

Krantz, S., Bell, R., Brant, J., and Magruder, M., Model Rules and Regulations on Prisoners' Rights and Responsibilities (1973), p. 160 [para. 15].

MacGuigan Report - see Canada, House of Commons Sub-Committee on the Penitentiary System in Canada, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Report to Parliament (1977).

Swackhamer Report - see Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Disturbances at Kingston Penitentiary.

Vantour Report - see Canada, Solicitor General, Report of the Study Group on Dissociation.

Counsel:

Thomas M. Engel (Engel Law Office) and Nathan J. Whitling (Parlee McLaws LLP), for the applicants;

P. Jon Faulds, Q.C., and Christine J. Pratt (Field LLP), for the respondents.

This application was heard on September 13-15, 2006, before Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on December 1, 2006.