Langlois v. Canada (Attorney General), (2004) 260 F.T.R. 186 (FC)

• Judge: Blais, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 28, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 260 F.T.R. 186 (FC);2004 FC 702

Langlois v. Can. (A.G.) (2004), 260 F.T.R. 186 (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: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.068

Jean-Pierre Langlois (demandeur) v. Procureur général du Canada (défendeur)

(T-425-03; T-426-03; 2004 FC 702; 2004 CF 702)

Indexed As: Langlois v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Blais, J.

May 14, 2004.

Summary:

A prison inmate was found guilty of two disciplinary offences (possession of knife and refusing urinalysis) by the chairperson of the disciplinary tribunal. The inmate sought judicial review to quash the convictions.

The Federal Court allowed the applications and quashed the convictions.

Prisons - Topic 1503

Discipline - Inmates - Inmate's right to information re alleged offence - A prison inmate was charged with a disciplinary offence after a prison guard searched his cell and found a knife - The chairperson of the disciplinary tribunal, who found the inmate guilty, repeatedly intervened in the inmate's counsel's questioning of the guard respecting the search - Although s. 25 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations required detailed information as to the date, time and place of the disciplinary offence, and a summary of the evidence, the chairperson found it sufficient that the charge disclosed only that a knife was found without further particulars - The Federal Court quashed the conviction - The inmate was informed of the offence, but was not provided with any of the evidence in support of the charge, as required by the notice provisions of s. 25 - Until the actual hearing, where and in what circumstances the knife was found was not disclosed - Depriving the inmate of this evidence hampered his defence and constituted a breach of natural justice and lack of procedural fairness - See paragraphs 9 to 14.

Prisons - Topic 1551

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Refusing to provide mandatory or random urine sample - A prison inmate was found guilty of the disciplinary offence of refusing to provide a urine sample on demand - A guard observed the inmate sharing a rolled cigarette with two other inmates - This was done out in an open area, with no indication of abnormal behaviour and no odour to suggest the cigarette was other than just a cigarette - Three weeks later, the inmate was asked to provide a urine sample on the basis that the guard believed he took an intoxicant into his body - The inmate provided a reasonable explanation for sharing a cigarette and refused to provide the sample - The Federal Court quashed the conviction - The guard did not have reasonable grounds to require a urine sample - The mere passing around of a cigarette did not constitute "reasonable grounds" to believe that the inmate took an intoxicant into his body - Suspicion alone was insufficient - The court was troubled as to why, if the guard reasonably believed an offence was being committed, he did not garner evidence (check behaviour, confiscate cigarette, etc.), but merely made a notation and waited three weeks before requesting a urine sample - See paragraphs 17 to 28.

Prisons - Topic 1602

Discipline - Inmates - Disciplinary hearing - Procedure - Notice - [See Prisons - Topic 1503 ].

Prisons - Topic 1607

Discipline - Inmates - Disciplinary hearing - Procedural fairness - [See Prisons - Topic 1503 ].

Cases Noticed:

Savard v. Canada (Procureur général) (1997), 128 F.T.R. 271 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Lapierre v. Canada (Procureur général) (2003), 233 F.T.R. 99 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations (Can.), Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, sect. 25(1), sect. 25(2) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Serge Bernier, for the applicant;

Sébastien Gagné, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Serge Bernier (Bernier, Parenteau), Drummondville, Quebec, for the applicant;

Sébastien Gagné, Regulatory Law Directorate, Quebec Regional Office, Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

These applications were heard on April 28, 2004, at Montreal, Quebec, before Blais, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 14, 2004.