Fisher v. Canada (Attorney General), (2013) 441 F.T.R. 273 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 11, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 441 F.T.R. 273 (FC);2013 FC 1108

Fisher v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 441 F.T.R. 273 (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: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.007

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

(T-950-12; 2013 FC 1108; 2013 CF 1108)

Indexed As: Fisher v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Russell, J.

October 30, 2013.

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 held that the application was not statute barred. The court, however, dismissed the application for judicial review.

Administrative Law - Topic 3342

Judicial review - General - Practice - Limitation period - A 1996 Parole Board of Canada resolution (amendment) altered the parole conditions for offenders on "parole reduced status" (PRS) - In 2012, the applicant, a PRS offender, applied for judicial review, claiming that the amendment affected his liberty rights contrary to s. 7 of the Charter - The Attorney General of Canada argued that the application was filed beyond the 30 day time limit for reviewing a decision of a federal board (Federal Courts Act, s. 18.1(2)) - The Federal Court held that the application was not statute barred - The application did not impugn an "order" or "decision" and therefore did not fall under s. 18.1(2) - Rather it was a "matter in respect of which relief is sought" under s. 18.1(1) of the Act, and as such was not subject to any time limitation - This was more in the nature of an ongoing policy that was being challenged as being unlawful and unconstitutional and could be challenged any time by judicial review - See paragraphs 67 to 80.

Administrative Law - Topic 3348

Judicial review - General - Practice - Time for application - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 7052

Judicial review - Bars - Statutory - Limitation period - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

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 dismissed the application - The applicant failed to establish that his liberty interests were curtailed as a result of the state action embodied in the amendment - There was thus no point for the court to proceed to examine the issues surrounding the fundamental justice section of the Charter - See paragraphs 81 to 95.

Civil Rights - Topic 8584

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for raising Charter issues - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Courts - Topic 4071.3

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Judicial review applications - Time for - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5670.1

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

Limitation of Actions - Topic 7601

Actions against the Crown - In the Federal Court of Canada - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3342 ].

Cases Noticed:

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 513; 23 Admin. L.R.(3d) 175; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 22].

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

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205; 71 Sask. R. 1; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 57; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 97; 66 C.R.(3d) 97; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 481, refd to. [para. 24].

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. 27].

Hay v. National Parole Board, [1985] F.C.J. No. 610 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 37].

Doucet-Boudreau et al. v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 312 N.R. 1; 218 N.S.R.(2d) 311; 687 A.P.R. 311; 2003 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 39].

Ward v. Vancouver (City) et al., [2010] 2 S.C.R. 28; 404 N.R. 1; 290 B.C.A.C. 222; 491 W.A.C. 222; [2010] 9 W.W.R. 195; 321 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2010 CarswellBC 1947; 2010 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 39].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly (1999), 244 N.R. 399 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2011), 400 F.T.R. 28; 2011 FC 1308, refd to. [para. 49].

Krause et al. v. Canada et al., [1999] 2 F.C. 476; 236 N.R. 317, refd to. [para. 52].

Sweet et al. v. Canada (1999), 249 N.R. 17 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Moresby Explorers Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 367 N.R. 204; 284 D.L.R.(4th) 708; 2007 FCA 273, refd to. [para. 75].

Canadian Association of the Deaf et al. v. Canada (2007), 298 F.T.R. 90; 272 D.L.R.(4th) 55; 2006 FC 971, refd to. [para. 76].

Olah v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 301 F.T.R. 274; 2006 FC 1245, refd to. [para. 79].

Airth v. Minister of National Revenue, [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 809; 2006 FC 1442, refd to. [para. 79].

Manuge v. Canada (2008), 329 F.T.R. 167; 2008 FC 624, refd to. [para. 79].

Popal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 3 F.C. 532; 184 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para 79].

Jodhan v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2008), 330 F.T.R. 226; 2008 FC 781, refd to. [para. 79].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 1]; sect. 24(1) [para. 36].

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 133(6) [para. 14].

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations (Can.), Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-060, sect. 161(1)(a) [para. 15].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 18.1(1) [para. 70]; sect. 18.1(2) [para. 71].

Counsel:

Michael McCubbin, for the applicant;

Susanne Pereira and Cindy Mah, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Department of Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on July 11, 2013, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision in Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2013.