Edmonds v. National Parole Board, (1974) 4 N.R. 166 (FCA)

• Judge: Jackett, C.J., Pratte and Ryan, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 4 N.R. 166 (FCA)

Edmonds v. Nat. Parole Bd. (1974), 4 N.R. 166 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Edmonds v. National Parole Board

Indexed As: Edmonds v. National Parole Board

Federal Court of Appeal

Jackett, C.J., Pratte and Ryan, JJ.

June 7, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of an action for a declaration by an inmate of a penitentiary. The inmate, Edmonds, while on parole was arrested and charged with uttering and was in custody for 106 days prior to trial and conviction. Following the conviction the term of imprisonment of Edmonds was calculated pursuant to s. 21 of the Parole Act. Pursuant to s. 21(1)(d) of the Parole Act Edmonds claimed he was entitled to a credit for the 106 days in custody prior to his conviction on the charge of uttering. The Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada granted Edmonds the declaratory relief which he claimed.

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the judgment of the Trial Division was set aside and the application for declaratory relief was dismissed. The Federal Court of Appeal interpreted s. 21(1)(d) of the Parole Act and held that Edmonds was not entitled to a credit of 106 days because the 106 days which he spent in custody related to the charge of uttering and was unrelated to a suspension or revocation of parole.

Criminal Law - Topic 5658

Punishments - Imprisonment - Term of imprisonment for a convicted parolee - Parole Act, s. 21(1)(d) - While on parole, Edmonds was arrested on a charge of uttering and was in custody for 106 days prior to trial and conviction - In calculating the term of imprisonment of Edmonds pursuant to s. 21 of the Parole Act, the Federal Court of Appeal held that Edmonds was not entitled to a credit of 106 days because the 106 days which he spent in custody related to the charge of uttering and was unrelated to a suspension or revocation of parole.

Words and Phrases

Suspended - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "suspended" as found in s. 21(1)(d) of the Parole Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-2.

Words and Phrases

Revoked - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "revoked" as found in s. 21(1)(d) of the Parole Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-2.

Statutes Noticed:

Parole Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-2, sect. 17(1) [para. 3]; sect. 21(1) [para. 4].

Counsel:

E.R. Sojonky, for the appellant;

Miss K. Cartwright, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 7, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Federal Court of Appeal on June 7, 1974 and the following opinions were filed:

RYAN, J. - see paragraphs 1 to 12.

JACKETT, C.J. - see paragraphs 13 and 14.

PRATTE, J., concurred with RYAN, J.