Fisher v. Canada (Attorney General), (2015) 474 N.R. 246 (FCA)

JudgeNoël, C.J., Dawson and Trudel, JJ.A.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 28, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2015), 474 N.R. 246 (FCA);2015 FCA 127

Fisher v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 474 N.R. 246 (FCA)

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: [2015] N.R. TBEd. JN.005

Paul Fisher (appellant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(A-396-13; 2015 FCA 127; 2015 CAF 127)

Indexed As: Fisher v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Noël, C.J., Dawson and Trudel, JJ.A.

May 19, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, a parolee on "parole reduced status" (PRS), applied for judicial review of a 1996 Parole Board of Canada resolution (amendment) that altered the parole conditions for PRS offenders, claiming that the amendment violated his s. 7 Charter rights. As a preliminary matter, the Attorney General of Canada argued that the application for judicial review was out of time because it was filed more than 30 days after the decision was made (Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(2)).

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 441 F.T.R. 273, held that the application was not statute barred. The court, however, dismissed the application for judicial review. The applicant appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 646.3

Liberty - Limitations on - Parole - The applicant, a parolee on "parole reduced status" (PRS), applied for judicial review of a 1996 Parole Board of Canada resolution (amendment) that altered the parole conditions for PRS offenders - The impact of the amendment was that instead of having to report to his parole supervisor once a year, he had to report quarterly - The applicant claimed that the amendment violated his liberty rights contrary to s. 7 Charter - The Federal Court of Appeal held that while the applicant established that he was deprived of his liberty by the decision, he failed to establish that the deprivation of his liberty was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice - There was no violation of s. 7 - See paragraphs 9 and 19 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 5670.1

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Conditions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 646.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask. R. 1, refd to. [para. 7].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 19].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 23].

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. 25].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 25].

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; 2005 SCC 82, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Clay (C.J.), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735; 313 N.R. 252; 181 O.A.C. 350; 2003 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 4].

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 100 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Michael McCubbin, for the appellant;

Susanne Pereira, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

The Law Offices of Michael McCubbin, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

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

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C. on January 28, 2015, before Noël, C.J., Dawson and Trudel, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following judgment was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on May 19, 2015, for the court by Dawson, J.A.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...26, 44 Finau v Department of Labour, [1984] 2 NZLR 396 .......................................... 204 Fisher v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 127 ................................... 82, 129 Flora v Ontario (Health Insurance Plan, General Director), 2008 ONCA 538, aff’g (2007), 83 OR (3......
  • Defining the Principles of Fundamental Justice
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...in the same way: a law that failed this test would be arbitrary in the s 7 sense. See also Fisher v Canada (Attorney General) , 2015 FCA 127, a challenge to a policy decision of the Parole Board. After some commentary on whether the decision “strikes the right balance” (para 31), the court ......
  • Engaging Section 7
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...143 at 150–51 [ Cunningham ]; R v Trohan , 2016 ABQB 1. 298 R v Gamble , [1988] 2 SCR 595 at 645. 299 Fisher v Canada (Attorney General) , 2015 FCA 127 at paras 21–23. 300 The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized more than once that s 7 applies to every step of the process for dealing wit......
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...26, 44 Finau v Department of Labour, [1984] 2 NZLR 396 .......................................... 204 Fisher v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FCA 127 ................................... 82, 129 Flora v Ontario (Health Insurance Plan, General Director), 2008 ONCA 538, aff’g (2007), 83 OR (3......
  • Defining the Principles of Fundamental Justice
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...in the same way: a law that failed this test would be arbitrary in the s 7 sense. See also Fisher v Canada (Attorney General) , 2015 FCA 127, a challenge to a policy decision of the Parole Board. After some commentary on whether the decision “strikes the right balance” (para 31), the court ......
  • Engaging Section 7
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second Edition
    • June 22, 2019
    ...143 at 150–51 [ Cunningham ]; R v Trohan , 2016 ABQB 1. 298 R v Gamble , [1988] 2 SCR 595 at 645. 299 Fisher v Canada (Attorney General) , 2015 FCA 127 at paras 21–23. 300 The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized more than once that s 7 applies to every step of the process for dealing wit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT