Libo-on v. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (Director) et al., (2004) 362 A.R. 231 (QB)

• Judge: Sulyma, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 08, 2003
• Citations: (2004), 362 A.R. 231 (QB);2004 ABQB 416

Libo-on v. Fort Sask. Correctional (2004), 362 A.R. 231 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JN.050

In The Matter Of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum

Chester Libo-on v. The Director of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre, and the Disciplinary Board of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (respondents)

(No. 0309 26349X1)

Yen Ly (applicant) v. The Director of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre, and the Disciplinary Board of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre

(No. 0309 26174X1)

Roger King v. The Director of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre, and the Disciplinary Board of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre

(No. 0309 27040X1)

James Grant (applicant) v. The Director of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre, and the Disciplinary Board of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre

(No. 0309 26398X1; 2004 ABQB 416)

Indexed As: Libo-on v. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (Director) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Sulyma, J.

June 3, 2004.

Summary:

Four inmates of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (FSCC) were convicted and sentenced by the FSCC Disciplinary Board respecting possession of contraband contrary to s. 47(o) of the Correctional Institution Regulation under the Corrections Act. Their appeals from conviction were all dismissed by the Director of FSCC. Each was sentenced to terms of solitary confinement and all but one of them lost visitation rights. The inmates applied for judicial review, alleging that the tribunals below erred in their interpretation of s. 47(o) by considering that provision to constitute what amounted to an absolute liability offence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held the disciplinary board erred in interpreting s. 47(o) as an absolute liability offence, but this error did not affect the board's decision with respect to two of the inmates so their convictions stood. However, the court set aside one of these inmate's visitation penalties because the board fettered its discretion by feeling compelled by policy to impose an indefinite loss of visitation rights without considering whether the circumstances justified a deviation from the policy. The court quashed the other two inmates' convictions because the board erred in failing to address the degree of knowledge necessary to establish the offence.

Prisons - Topic 1550

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Contraband - Possession of - Section 47(o) of the Correctional Institution Regulation enacted under the Corrections Act, provided that the disciplinary board of a provincial correctional institution could direct that an inmate be punished if the inmate "has in the inmate's cell or possession any unauthorized article or attempts to obtain such an article ..." - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 47(o) was a strict liability offence giving rise to the availability of the defence of due diligence - See paragraphs 87 to 129.

Prisons - Topic 1550

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Contraband - Possession of - Four inmates of a provincial correctional facility were convicted and sentenced by the facility's disciplinary board respecting possession of contraband contrary to s. 47(o) of the Correctional Institution Regulation under the Corrections Act - Their appeals from conviction were all dismissed by the director of the facility - Each was sentenced to terms of solitary confinement and all but one of them lost visitation rights - The inmates applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the disciplinary board erred in interpreting s. 47(o) as an absolute liability offence, but this error did not affect the board's decision with respect to two of the inmates - The court set aside one of these inmate's visitation penalties because the board fettered its discretion by feeling compelled by policy to impose an indefinite loss of visitation rights without considering whether the circumstances justified a deviation from the policy - The court quashed the other two inmates' convictions because the board erred in failing to address the degree of knowledge necessary to establish the offence - See paragraphs 1 to 150.

Prisons - Topic 1565

Discipline - Inmates - Judicial review - Scope of - Four inmates of a provincial correctional facility were convicted and sentenced by the facility's disciplinary board respecting possession of contraband contrary to s. 47(o) of the Correctional Institution Regulation under the Corrections Act - Their appeals from conviction were all dismissed by the director of the facility - Each was sentenced to terms of solitary confinement and all but one of them lost visitation rights - The inmates applied for judicial review, alleging that the tribunals below erred in their interpretation of s. 47(o), by considering that provision to constitute what amounted to an absolute liability offence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the standard of review to be applied in reviewing the interpretation of s. 47(o) by the disciplinary board and the facility director was that of correctness and in reviewing their findings of fact was patent unreasonableness - See paragraphs 77 to 86.

Cases Noticed:

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Shubley, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 3; 104 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 63; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 54].

Morin v. Saskatoon Correctional Centre et al. (1990), 86 Sask.R. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55].

Winters v. Legal Services Society (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 160; 244 N.R. 203; 128 B.C.A.C. 161; 208 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 55].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 56].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266, refd to. [para. 56].

Beaver v. R., [1957] S.C.R. 531, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Precision Plastics Ltd. et al. (2003), 337 A.R. 210; 2003 ABPC 129, refd to. [para. 58].

Bailey v. Canada (Procureur général) (2001), 210 F.T.R. 18 (T.D.), affd. [2002] N.R. Uned. 305; 2002 FCA 484, refd to. [para. 59].

McLarty v. Canada (1997), 133 F.T.R. 11 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Ryan v. William Head Institution, [1997] F.C.J. No. 1290 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Lee v. Kent Institution Disciplinary Court (Independent Chairperson) (1993), 70 F.T.R. 155 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Martineau and Butters v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 118; 14 N.R. 285; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Beaver Creek Correctional Camp Head; Ex parte MacCaud, [1969] 1 O.R. 373; 2 D.L.R.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Hall (1959), 124 C.C.C. 238 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Glushek (1978), 9 A.R. 539; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Marshall, [1969] 3 C.C.C. 149 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. York (J.A.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 769; 2003 BCSC 769, refd to. [para. 65].

Richer v. Saskatchewan Penitentiary (2003), 237 F.T.R. 252; 2003 FC 887, refd to. [para. 67].

Lajoie-Smith v. Canada (Procureur général), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 805; 2002 FCT 2003, refd to. [para. 67].

Ayotte v. Canada (Procureur général) (2003), 229 F.T.R. 309; 2002 FCT 2002, revd. (2003), 320 N.R. 339; 2003 FCA 429, refd to. [para. 67].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 67].

Howard v. Stony Mountain Institution Inmate Disciplinary Court (Presiding Officer) (1985), 57 N.R. 280; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 195 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

Hendrickson v. Kent Institution Disciplinary Court (Independent Chairperson) (1990), 32 F.T.R. 296 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 69].

Forrest v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 219 F.T.R. 82; 2002 FCT 539, refd to. [para. 69].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 83].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Zundel (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731; 140 N.R. 1; 56 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 90].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 91].

Rex v. Hoffman (1917), 38 D.L.R. 289; 28 C.C.C. 355 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Cappan (1920), 32 C.C.C. 267 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Martin (1948), 92 C.C.C. 257, 7 C.R. 44 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. and Chedore, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154; 130 N.R. 1; 49 O.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 103].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 103].

Reynolds v. Austin & Sons Ltd., [1951] 2 K.B. 135, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321; 14 O.A.C. 33; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 111].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 111].

Morin v. National Special Handling Unit Review Committee, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 662; 63 N.R. 363, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Pierce Fisheries Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 5, refd to. [para. 125].

Statutes Noticed:

Correctional Institution Regulation - see Corrections Act Regulations (Alta.).

Corrections Act Regulations (Alta.), Correctional Institution Regulation, Reg. 205/2001, sect. 47(o) [paras. 45, 87].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Law Reform Commission, Criminal Responsibility for Action Group, Working Paper No. 16 (1976), p. 12 [para. 103].

Côté, Pierre André, Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 474 [para. 72].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 88].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (2nd Ed. 1994), p. 169 [para. 66].

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (3rd Ed. 1999), pp. 177 to 180 [para. 134].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 366 to 369, 392 to 394 [para. 56].

Counsel:

N.J. Whitling and T.M. Engel, for the applicants;

P.J. Faulds, Q.C., and K.M. Haymond, for the respondents.

This matter was heard on September 8, 2003, before Sulyma, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on June 3, 2004.