Goulet v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FC 65

• Judge: Barnes, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2012 FC 65;(2012), 403 F.T.R. 234 (FC)

Goulet v. Can. (2012), 403 F.T.R. 234 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.045

Richard Goulet (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent)

(T-5-11; 2012 FC 65)

Indexed As: Goulet v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Federal Court

Barnes, J.

January 19, 2012.

Summary:

Goulet was serving a sentence of seven years and three months at a correctional facility in the United States for the offences of conspiracies to distribute and to import marijuana into the U.S. His application under the International Transfer of Offenders Act for a transfer to a Canadian correctional facility was denied. Goulet applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application. The matter was remitted for an assessment on the merits and in accordance with the Act.

Administrative Law - Topic 549

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Sufficiency of - Goulet was serving a sentence of seven years and three months at a correctional facility in the United States for the offences of conspiracies to distribute and to import marijuana into the U.S. - His application under the International Transfer of Offenders Act for a transfer to a Canadian correctional facility was denied - The Federal Court allowed Goulet's application for judicial review - It was impossible to tell from the Minister's reasons for decision what factors caused him to deny Goulet's application or for the court to determine if the decision was reasonable - A decision that contained nothing more than the recitation of a few relevant facts and a bare conclusion was not one that was legally defensible under the Act, which specifically imposed a duty to give reasons - One of the purposes for reasons was to allow for meaningful judicial review - It was not enough to say that the statutory factors had been considered - Some assessment of the evidence was necessary - The decision here came to a bare conclusion that ran contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence - This was the type of pro forma decision that had been repeatedly found to be inadequate - The matter was remitted for an assessment on the merits and in accordance with the Act.

Crown - Topic 685

Authority of Ministers - Exercise of - Administrative decisions - Appeals or judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Prisons - Topic 1026

Administration - Powers re prisoners - Transfers (incl. international transfers) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 549 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 9].

Del Vecchio v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 398 F.T.R. 75; 2011 FC 1135, folld. [para. 10].

Tangorra v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 401 F.T.R. 246; 2011 FC 1433, folld. [para. 11].

Newberry v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 399 F.T.R. 97; 2011 FC 1261, not folld. [para. 13].

Lebon v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 395 F.T.R. 298; 2011 FC 1018, not folld. [para. 13].

Duarte v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 390 F.T.R. 193; 2011 FC 602, refd to. [para. 13].

Holmes v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 383 F.T.R. 185; 2011 FC 112, not folld. [para. 13].

Tippett v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 393 F.T.R. 157; 2011 FC 814, not folld. [para. 13].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 14].

Adu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 326; 2005 FC 565, refd to. [para. 14].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 15].

Grant v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2010] F.C.J. No. 386, refd to. [para. 17].

Villano v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 401 F.T.R. 255; 2011 FC 1434, refd to. [para. 18].

Downey v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 66; 2011 FC 116, refd to. [para. 18].

Randhawa v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 375; 2011 FC 625, refd to. [para. 18].

Vatani v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 64; 2011 FC 114, refd to. [para. 18].

Yu v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 393 F.T.R. 149; 2011 FC 819, refd to. [para. 18].

Dudas v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2010), 373 F.T.R. 253; 2010 FC 942, refd to. [para. 18].

Getkate v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2008), 333 F.T.R. 121; 2008 FC 965, refd to. [para. 18].

Singh (Davinder) v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 65; 2011 FC 115, refd to. [para. 18].

Wong v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 598; 2008 FC 783, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

John W. Conroy, for the applicant;

Lucy Bell, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Conroy & Company, Abbotsford, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 13, 2011, by Barnes, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 19, 2012.