Laliberté v. Commissaire du Service Correctionnel du Canada et al., (2000) 181 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

• Judge: Lemieux, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 28, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 181 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

Laliberté v. Correctional Service (2000), 181 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

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: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.056

Gilles Laliberté (demandeur) v. Commissaire du Service Correctionnel du Canada et Procureur général du Canada (défendeurs)

(T-1859-98)

Indexed As: Laliberté v. Commissaire du Service Correctionnel du Canada et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Lemieux, J.

April 27, 2000.

Summary:

The applicant inmate had had an emotional relationship with another inmate (Mayer) since 1997. The applicant applied to partici­pate in the private family visiting program so that he would have an opportunity to have intimate relations with Mayer. The Assistant Commis­sioner, Organizational Development, of the Correctional Service of Canada, ren­dered a decision on a third level grievance and ruled that the applicant could not partici­pate in the private family visiting program as provided in Commissioner's Directive 770 because Mayer could not be regarded as a "visitor" within the meaning of the Directive. The applicant applied for judicial review of the Assistant Commissioner's decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 5660.1

Equality and protection of the law - Par­ticular cases - Prisoners - [See Prisons - Topic 1112 ].

Prisons - Topic 1112

Administration - Prisoners' rights - Institu­tional visiting programs - The applicant inmate applied to participate in the private family visiting program so that he could have intimate relations with another inmate (Mayer) with whom he had had an emo­tional relationship since 1997 - The Assis­tant Commissioner, Organizational Devel­opment, of the Correctional Service of Canada, ruled that the applicant could not participate in the private family visiting program as provided in Commissioner's Directive 770 because Mayer could not be regarded as a "visitor" - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - Section 2 of the Correc­tions and Conditional Release Act defined "visitor" as excluding other inmates and that definition applied to the Directive - Mayer was also not a "common law part­ner", a person with "a close familial bond", or a person "from the community" - While the applicant raised an issue with respect to whether the Assistant Commissioner's decision constituted discrimination within s. 15 of the Charter, it appeared that the decision involved no discrimination based on sex.

Cases Noticed:

Tehrankari v. Correctional Service of Canada (2000), 188 F.T.R. 206 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 21].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 51].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Conway v. Canada.

Veysey v. Correctional Service of Canada (1990), 109 N.R. 300 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 2 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Larousse en Couleur [para. 32].

New Oxford Dictionary of English [para. 32].

New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary [para. 32].

Petit Larousse Illustré [para. 32].

Petit Robert [para. 32].

Counsel:

Claudia Côté, for the plaintiff;

Éric Lafrenière, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Généreux Côté, Drummondville, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Minister of Justice, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant.

This application was heard on September 28, 1999, at Montreal, Quebec, before Lemieux, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 27, 2000.