Jackson v. Joyceville Penitentiary Disciplinary Tribunal, (1990) 32 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 16, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 32 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

Jackson v. Joyceville Penitentiary (1990), 32 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Thomas Jackson (plaintiff) v. The Disciplinary Tribunal, Joyceville Penitentiary, namely Donald Schlichter, Independant Chairperson and The Attorney General of Canada (defendants)

(T-1934-87)

Indexed As: Jackson v. Joyceville Penitentiary Disciplinary Tribunal

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

February 16, 1990.

Summary:

Jackson was an inmate in a medium security institution. Penitentiary officers suspected him of using intoxicants and demanded a urine sample pursuant to s. 41.1 of the Penitentiary Service Regulations. Jackson refused. He was charged with a disciplinary offence. Jackson's defence was that the urine sample demand was not lawful because s. 41.1 was contrary to ss. 7, 8 and 15 of the Charter.

The Joyceville Penitentiary Disciplinary Tribunal convicted Jackson without dealing with the constitutional issues. Jackson commenced an action against the Disciplinary Tribunal and the Attorney General of Canada for a declaration that s. 41.1 was contrary to the Charter.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed Jackson's action. The court declared that "s. 41.1 of the Penitentiary Service Regulations insofar as it deals with the circumstance of requiring a urine specimen from an inmate who is believed to have ingested an intoxicant is null and of no effect, as contrary to ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is not saved by s. 1 of that Charter". The court held also that s. 41.1 was not contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. Jackson's conviction was therefore set aside.

Civil Rights - Topic 646

Liberty - Limitations on - Prisoners - Mandatory urine testing - The Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 41.1, allowed penitentiary officers to demand urine samples from inmates if the officers considered the samples necessary to detect the presence of intoxicants - Refusal was a disciplinary offence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 41.1 contravened s. 7 of the Charter, because the restrictions on the rights to liberty and security of the person were not, in the absence of standards or criteria or applicable circumstance, in accord with the principles of fundamental justice - See paragraphs 83 to 98 - S. 41.1 could not be saved by s. 1 - See paragraphs 99 to 117.

Civil Rights - Topic 1215

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Prisoners - Mandatory urine testing - The Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 41.1 allowed penitentiary officers to demand urine samples from inmates if the officers considered the samples necessary to detect the presence of intoxicants - Refusal was a disciplinary offence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 41.1 provided for an unreasonable search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter because s. 41.1 contained no standards, criteria or circumstances relating to its application for the guidance of staff or inmates to ensure that the searches were not unreasonable - See paragraphs 57 to 82 - S. 41.1 could not be saved by s. 1 - See paragraphs 99 to 117.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1215].

Civil Rights - Topic 1366

Security of the person - Institutional inmates - Mandatory urine testing - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1215].

Civil Rights - Topic 1366

Security of the person - Institutional inmates - Mandatory urine testing - [See Civil Rights - Topic 646].

Civil Rights - Topic 5660.1

Equality and protection of the law - Prisoners - Mandatory urine testing - The Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 41.1, allowed penitentiary officers to demand urine samples from inmates if the officers considered the samples necessary to detect the presence of intoxicants - Refusal was a disciplinary offence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 41.1 did not contravene s. 15 of the Charter (the equality provision) - See paragraphs 118 to 123.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Charter - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - The Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 41.1, allowed penitentiary officers to demand urine samples from inmates if the officers considered the samples necessary to detect the presence of intoxicants - Refusal was a disciplinary offence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 41.1 contravened ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1 - See paragraphs 99 to 117.

Prisons - Topic 1004

Administration - Commissioner's directives - Effect of - A prison inmate challenged the mandatory urine testing procedures under the Penitentiary Service Regulations (s. 41.1) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that it should read s. 41.1 without modification or qualification derived from directives or standing orders - See paragraphs 66 to 68.

Prisons - Topic 1005

Administration - Regulation of drug use - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the legislative provisions dealing with drugs in a penitentiary setting - See paragraphs 19 to 29.

Prisons - Topic 1113

Administration - Prisoner's rights - Mandatory urine testing - The Penitentiary Service Regulations, s. 41.1, allowed penitentiary officers to demand urine samples from inmates if the officers considered the samples necessary to detect the presence of intoxicants - Refusal was a disciplinary offence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that s. 41.1 contravened ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1 - The court held that s. 41.1 did not contravene s. 15 of the Charter.

Cases Noticed:

Dion and The Queen, Re (1986), 30 C.C.C.(3d) 108, refd to. [paras. 2, 22-24, 51, 52, 56, 83-98].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 54].

Law v. Solicitor General of Canada, [1985] 1 F.C. 62; 57 N.R. 45 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Zwarich v. Canada (Attorney General), [1987] 3 F.C. 253; 82 N.R. 341 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1989] 2 F.C. 245; 88 N.R. 6 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Vincer v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 F.C. 714; 82 N.R. 352 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Alli v. Canada (Attorney General) (1988), 88 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Canada (Procureur Général) v. Sirois (1988), 90 N.R. 39 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Racette, [1988] 2 W.W.R. 318; 61 Sask.R. 248; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 D.L.R.(4th) 412 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Katsigiorgis (1987), 23 O.A.C. 27; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 256; 62 O.R.(2d) 441 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 58, 85].

R. v. Dyment (1986), 57 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 210; 170 A.P.R. 210; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 120; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 399; 49 C.R.(3d) 338 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Enns (1987), 85 A.R. 7; 3 W.C.B.(2d) 186 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Holman (1982), 28 C.R.(3d) 378 (B.C. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 56 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 60, 74].

Jensen v. Lick (1984), 589 F. Supp. 35, refd to. [paras. 61, 108].

Spence v. Farrier (1986), 807 F. Supp.(2d) 753 (C.A. 8th Circ.), refd to. [paras. 61, 108].

Peranzo et al. v. Coughlin et al. (1987), 675 F. Supp. 102 (D.C., N.Y.S.D.), refd to. [paras. 61, 108].

National Treasury Employees Union et al. v. Von Raab (1987), 816 F. Supp. 170 (C.A. 5th Circ.), affd. (1989), U.S.S.C. No. 86-1879), refd to. [paras. 61, 108].

McDonnell v. Hunter (1987), 809 F. 2d. 1302 (C.A. 8th Circ.), refd to. [para. 62].

Weatherall v. Attorney General of Canada, [1988] 1 F.C. 369; 11 F.T.R. 279 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [paras. 62, 66, 67, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 91, 92].

Weatherall v. Canada, [1989] 1 F.C. 18; 86 N.R. 168 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 62, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 78, 81, 89, 92].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 118; 14 N.R. 285, refd to. [paras. 66, 77].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97; [1984] 6 W.W.R. 577; 33 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 B.L.R. 297; 84 D.T.C. 6467; 2 C.P.R.(3d) 1; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [paras. 73, 74, 75, 100].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 78, 100].

Lanza v. State of New York (1962), 370 U.S. 139, refd to. [para. 78].

Bell v. Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520, refd to. [para. 78].

Hudson v. Palmer (1984), 468 U.S. 517, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Pohoretsky; R. v. Ramage; R. v. L.A.R., [1985] 3 W.W.R. 289; 32 Man.R.(2d) 291; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 104; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 268 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Beare; R. v. Higgins, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 387; 88 N.R. 205 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 89, 90, 91, 93].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422; 14 C.R.R. 13; 12 Admin. L.R. 137 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Operation Dismantle et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 481; 13 C.P.R. 287 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 36 M.V.R. 240; 18 C.C.C. 30; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 90, 102, 103].

R. v. Morgantaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 90, 95].

R. v. Noble (1984), 6 O.A.C. 11; 48 O.R.(2d) 643; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 146 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 101, 103].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 208, refd to. [para. 103].

Skinner et al. v. Railway Labour Executives Association et al. (1989), Ct. No. 87-1555 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 108].

Mack v. F.B.I. (1986), 653 F. Supp. 70, appeal dismissed (1987), 814 F. 2d. 120 (C.A. 2nd Circ.), refd to. [para. 108].

Shoemaker et al. v. Handel et al. (1986), 759 F. 2d. 1136 (C.A. 3rd Circ.), refd to. [para. 108].

Ontario Film & Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors, Re (1984), 2 O.A.C. 388; 5 D.L.R.(4th) 766 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 112, 114].

Luscher v. Minister of National Revenue (1985), 57 N.R. 386; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 503 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 113, 114].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 121].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 2, 99-117]; sect. 7 [paras. 2, 3, 55, 83-117]; sect. 8 [paras. 3, 57-82, 99-117]; sect. 15 [paras. 3, 6, 118-123]; sect. 24(1) [paras. 53, 54].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52(1) [paras. 53, 54].

Penitentiary Act, Penitentiary Service Regulations, C.R.C. 1978, c. 1251, sect. 2 [para. 19]; sect. 39(a) [paras. 2, 17, 19, 21, 26]; sect. 39(a)(i.1) [paras. 19, 21, 22]; sect. 39(i), sect. 39(j) [para. 20]; sect. 41.1 [para. 2 et seq.].

United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment [paras. 79, 108].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Correctional Service of Canada, Administrative Guidelines for the Urinalysis Program [para. 21, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Fergus J. O'Connor and Donald A. Bailey, for the plaintiff;

J. Grant Sinclair, Q.C., and Brian J. Saunders, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

O'Connor, Ecclestone and Kaiser, Kingston, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants.

This case was heard in Ottawa, Ontario, on March 13, 14, 15 and 17, 1989, before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 16, 1990: