Lopez v. National Parole Board et al., 2001 BCCA 742

• Judge: Saunders, Smith and Proudfoot, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 18, 2001
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2001 BCCA 742;(2001), 162 B.C.A.C. 66 (CA)

Lopez v. Nat. Parole Bd. (2001), 162 B.C.A.C. 66 (CA);

    264 W.A.C. 66

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.051

Cirilo Bautista Lopez (respondent) v. National Parole Board, Warden of William Head Institution, The Deputy Com­missioner, Pacific Region Correctional Service of Canada and Attorney General of Canada (appellants)

(CA028696; 2001 BCCA 742)

Indexed As: Lopez v. National Parole Board et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Saunders, Smith and Proudfoot, JJ.A.

December 21, 2001.

Summary:

An inmate serving four years for conspir­acy to traffic in a narcotic was released on full parole. While at large, he was charged with assault causing bodily harm. As a result, a suspension warrant was issued under s. 135(1) of the Corrections and Con­ditional Release Act. The inmate was appre­hended and returned to custody. His case was referred to the National Parole Board. The Board revoked parole. The inmate applied for habeas corpus for his release from prison.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that the Board lost jurisdiction to revoke parole because the inmate's case was referred 31 days after his recommitment. The court ordered that the inmate be released. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5667

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Forfeiture, revoca­tion or termination of - [See Time - Topic 786 ].

Time - Topic 786

Computation of time - Particular words - "Within" - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the phrase "within 30 days after the recommitment" in s. 135(3)(b) of the Corrections and Condi­tional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, excluded the day of recommitment - See paragraphs 6 to 38.

Words and Phrases

Within 30 days after the recommitment - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the phrase "within 30 days after the recommitment" in s. 135(3)(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, excluded the day of recommitment - See paragraphs 6 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Fraser v. Kent Institution (Warden) et al. (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 312; 154 W.A.C. 312; 6 C.R.(5th) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

Roach v. Kent Institution (Director), [1983] B.C.J. No. 1630 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11].

Williams v. Burgess and another (1840), 10 L.J.(Q.B.) 10, consd. [para. 19].

Railway Sleepers Supply Co., Re (1885), 29 Ch. D. 204, consd. [para. 20].

Pugh v. Leeds (Duke) (1777), 2 Cowp. 714, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 135(1), sect. 135(3)(b) [para. 7]; sect. 135(5) [para. 30].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-23, sect. 27(2), sect. 27(5) [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 93 [para. 36].

Counsel:

Jack Wright, for the appellants;

Donna M. Turko, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Saunders, Smith and Proudfoot, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 18, 2001. The decision of the court was delivered on De­cember 21, 2001, by Smith, J.A.