Hall v. Canada (Attorney General), (2013) 439 F.T.R. 51 (FC)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 15, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 439 F.T.R. 51 (FC);2013 FC 933

Hall v. Can. (A.G.) (2013), 439 F.T.R. 51 (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. SE.024

George Hall (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-5-13; 2013 FC 933; 2013 CF 933)

Indexed As: Hall v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Crampton, C.J.

September 4, 2013.

Summary:

The Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada refused the applicant's request for a reduction in his security classification and a transfer to a minimum security facility. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application in part. The court set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted it to him for a new assessment where he failed to perform a de novo review. The court rejected the applicant's submission that the grievance process was neither fair nor effective, due to the delay of approximately 44 working days in reaching the third level grievance decision and delivering it to him. Accordingly, the court denied his request for a declaration in that regard.

Administrative Law - Topic 2158

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Delay - [See Prisons - Topic 1027 ].

Prisons - Topic 1009

Administration - General - Grievances - [See Prisons - Topic 1027 ].

Prisons - Topic 1027

Administration - Powers re prisoners - Classification - The Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada refused Hall's request for a reduction in his security classification and a transfer to a minimum security facility - The Federal Court set aside the Commissioner's decision and remitted it to him for a new assessment - Apart from addressing one single new argument made by Hall, there was virtually nothing in the Commissioner's decision which might reasonably reflect that he personally assessed the issues raised by Hall in his grievance and supplementary submissions, and that he reached his own conclusion regarding their merits - The Commissioner concluded that the Warden's decision had been made in accordance with policy and in consideration of all available evidence - However, Hall was entitled to have his grievance heard afresh, and to present new arguments and evidence that had not been presented to the Warden and the Regional Deputy Commission - The appeal was supposed to be a de novo review - However, the court rejected Hall's submission that the grievance process was neither fair nor effective, due to the delay of approximately 44 working days in reaching the third level grievance decision and delivering it to him - Accordingly, the court denied his request for a declaration in that regard.

Cases Noticed:

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 21].

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. 23].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 24].

Spidel v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 416 F.T.R. 197; 2012 FC 958, refd to. [para. 28].

Rose et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 901; 2011 FC 1495, refd to. [para. 35].

Riley v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 403 F.T.R. 75; 2011 FC 1226, refd to. [para. 35].

Tyrrell v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 322 F.T.R. 236; 2008 FC 42, refd to. [para. 35].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 37].

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. 42].

Hutchison v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 535; 2010 ONSC 535, refd to. [para. 42].

Wilson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 403 F.T.R. 287; 2012 FC 57 [para. 50].

Ouellette v. Canada (Attorney General), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 352; 2012 FC 801, refd to. [para. 50].

Counsel:

Eric Purtzki, for the applicant;

Megan F. Volk, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gratl Purtzki, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

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

This application for judicial review was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on August 15, 2013, by Crampton, C.J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 4, 2013.