Geary v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al., (2004) 350 A.R. 143 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 350 A.R. 143 (QB);2004 ABQB 19

Geary v. Edmonton Remand Centre (2004), 350 A.R. 143 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JA.135

Preston Geary (applicant) v. The Director of the Edmonton Remand Centre, Dr. Ian Bailes and Dr. Harry Jaglalsingh (respondents)

(03046467UI; 2004 ABQB 19)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

January 10, 2004.

Summary:

Geary was awaiting trial on two groups of relatively minor charges. He was being held on remand at the defendant institution and since his incarceration, he had been denied access to his prescription medication. Geary applied for an order requiring the defendant institution to give him access to his medication.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted an interlocutory injunction requiring the defendant institution to grant Geary access to his medication. The court adjourned the application sine die.

Injunctions - Topic 1609

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Circumstances when injunction will issue - Geary was awaiting trial on two groups of relatively minor charges - He was being held on remand at the defendant institution and since his incarceration, he had been denied access to his prescription medication - Geary applied for injunctive relief requiring the institution to give him access to his medication - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted an interlocutory injunction requiring the defendant institution to grant Geary access to his medication - The court held that there was no doubt that the rights of detainees on remand to medical treatment while incarcerated were serious issues to be tried - The pain felt by Geary constituted irreparable harm - The balance of convenience favoured Geary as he had a reasonable possibility of success on the main application, the interlocutory relief would not have major implications for the defendant institution, the relief was not pointless and it did not interfere with the defendant physicians.

Injunctions - Topic 2309

Mandatory injunctions - Interim or interlocutory mandatory injunctions - [See Injunctions - Topic 1609 ].

Prisons - Topic 1127

Administration - Prisoners' rights - Accommodation of medical conditions (incl. "essential health services") - [See Injunctions - Topic 1609 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 5].

Dumas v. National Parole Board, [1986] 2 S.C.R 459; 72 N.R. 61; 3 Q.A.C. 133, refd to. [para. 5].

Dumas v. LeClerc Institute - see Dumas v. National Parole Board.

Gamble v. R., [1988] 2 S.C.R. 595; 89 N.R. 161; 31 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

Bembenek v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (1991), 69 C.C.C.(3d) 34 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 5].

Cox v. Hakes (1890), 15 A.C. 506 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

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. 5].

Ruffin v. Commonwealth (1871), 62 Va. (21 Gratt) 790, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Institutional Head of Beaver Creek Correction Camp; ex parte McCaud, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 371 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Bruce v. Reynett, [1979] 2 F.C. 697 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, refd to. [para. 5].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 5].

Raymond v. Honey, [1982] 1 All E.R. 756, refd to. [para. 5].

Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519; 294 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 5].

Ciarlariello et al. v. Schacter et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 119; 151 N.R. 133; 62 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 188 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 5].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Reference Re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.) - see Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration.

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 5].

United States of America v. Burns and Rafay, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 283; 265 N.R. 212; 148 B.C.A.C. 1; 243 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. A.D., [2001] A.J. No. 1441 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Kravchov, [2002] O.J. No. 2172 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 5].

Martineau and Butters v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 118; 14 N.R. 285, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Grady, 1988 CarswellOnt 1088 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Downey (1989), 42 C.R.R. 286 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. MacPherson (N.H.) (1996), 177 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 449 A.P.R. 1; 48 C.R.(4th) 122 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. McCallen (J.B.) (1999), 116 O.A.C. 308; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Mater (1988), 47 C.R.R. 351 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al. (2002), 322 A.R. 212 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Kelly v. Canada et al. (1996), 114 F.T.R. 285 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Lavoie v. Canada, [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 162 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Patriquen v. Commissioner of Corrections (Can.) et al. (2003), 238 F.T.R. 153 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Maltby, Sinclair, Perrin and Morin v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General), Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) and Director of Saskatoon Provincial Correction Centre (1982), 20 Sask.R. 366 (Q.B.), appeal not heard as moot (1984), 34 Sask.R. 177; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 745 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Davies v. Birmingham Coroner, [2003] E.W.J. No. 1467 (Q.B. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

Middleton v. West Somersetshire Coroner, [2002] E.W.J. No. 1834 (C.A. Civ. Div.), refd to. [para. 7].

Stringer v. South Yourkshiere Coroner, [1993] E.W.J. No. 2638 (H.C.J. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. J.E.L., [2001] O.J. No. 5785 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. D.D., [2002] O.J. No. 2070 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

Gerstel v. Penticton (City), [1995] B.C.J. No. 1572 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Taylor, [2000] B.C.J. No. 2828 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 7].

Smith v. Carpenter, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 503 (2nd Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Gibson v. County of Washoe, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21395 (9th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Conquest v. Berg, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16401 (7th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Smith v. Yarrow, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21395 (6th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Alloway v. Hodge, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16652 (10th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Plata v. Davis, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 10437 (9th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Walker v. Benjamin, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 11921 (7th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 25446 (10th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Newsome v. Peterson, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 9134 (6th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Van Ripper v. Corr. Med. Serv., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 17924 (10th Circ.), refd to. [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Antieau, C.J., The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies, Habeas Corpus and the Other Common Law Writs (1987), vol. 1, generally [para. 5].

Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston, The Prison for Women in Kingston (1996), generally [para. 5].

Correctional Service of Canada, Fifty Years of Human Rights Developments in Federal Corrections (1998), generally [para. 5].

Correctional Service of Canada, Human Rights and Corrections: A Strategic Model (1997), generally [para. 5].

Gover, B.J., and Ramraj, V.V., The Criminal Lawyers Guide to Extraordinary Remedies (2000), generally [para. 5].

Roach, K., Constitutional Remedies in Canada (Looseleaf), generally [para. 5].

Counsel:

Thomas M. Engel and Jonathan J. Whitling, for the applicant;

P. Jonathan Faulds, Q.C., and Christine J. Pratt, for the respondent, Director of the Edmonton Remand Centre;

James J. Heelan, for the respondents, Dr. Bailes and Dr. Jaglalsingh;

Michael H. Clancy, for the applicant on criminal matters;

Bonnie Parker, Crown Prosecutor on criminal matters.

This application was heard on January 9, 2004, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on January 10, 2004.