Lopez v. Nat. Parole Bd., 2001 BCCA 742

JudgeSaunders, Smith and Proudfoot, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (British Columbia)
Case DateOctober 18, 2001
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations2001 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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Hamm v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 ABQB 440
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • August 9, 2016
    ...Revision ; R. v. Kahnapace 2008 SKCA 15 ; Bacon v Surrey Pretrial Services Centre 2010 BCSC 805; Lopez v. Canada (National Parole Board) 2001 BCCA 742; R. v Osborne 2016 ONSC 3874; MacKenzie v LeBlanc 2007 BCSC 768; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town) 2001 SC......
  • Sun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 431
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 16, 2011
    ...with the computation of a number of days between two events, is simply specious. As noted in Lopez v Canada (National Parole Board) , 2001 BCCA 742 at paragraph 19, section 27 simply reflects the long-standing common law rule that in computing time between two events, the law does not count......
  • TD Bank v. British Columbia (Commissioner of Income Tax), 2017 BCCA 159
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • April 21, 2017
    ...does not consider units of time smaller than a day. When during a day an event occurs is of no moment: Lopez v. National Parole Board, 2001 BCCA 742 at paras. 1821, 161 C.C.C. (3d) [44] In s. 28(4) of the IBAA the triggering event is “the end of the taxation year”. Although a taxation year ......
  • Pearce v. Parole Bd., (2012) 416 F.T.R. 21 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 5, 2012
    ...refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Mitchell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 570; 6 N.R. 389, refd to. [para. 38]. Lopez v. National Parole Board et al. (2001), 162 B.C.A.C. 66; 264 W.A.C. 66; 2001 BCCA 742, refd to. [para. Berenstein v. Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles (1996), 111 F.T.R. 231 (......
4 cases
  • Hamm v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 ABQB 440
    • Canada
    • Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • August 9, 2016
    ...Revision ; R. v. Kahnapace 2008 SKCA 15 ; Bacon v Surrey Pretrial Services Centre 2010 BCSC 805; Lopez v. Canada (National Parole Board) 2001 BCCA 742; R. v Osborne 2016 ONSC 3874; MacKenzie v LeBlanc 2007 BCSC 768; 114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) v. Hudson (Town) 2001 SC......
  • Sun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 431
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • June 16, 2011
    ...with the computation of a number of days between two events, is simply specious. As noted in Lopez v Canada (National Parole Board) , 2001 BCCA 742 at paragraph 19, section 27 simply reflects the long-standing common law rule that in computing time between two events, the law does not count......
  • TD Bank v. British Columbia (Commissioner of Income Tax), 2017 BCCA 159
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • April 21, 2017
    ...does not consider units of time smaller than a day. When during a day an event occurs is of no moment: Lopez v. National Parole Board, 2001 BCCA 742 at paras. 1821, 161 C.C.C. (3d) [44] In s. 28(4) of the IBAA the triggering event is “the end of the taxation year”. Although a taxation year ......
  • Pearce v. Parole Bd., (2012) 416 F.T.R. 21 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • April 5, 2012
    ...refd to. [para. 29]. R. v. Mitchell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 570; 6 N.R. 389, refd to. [para. 38]. Lopez v. National Parole Board et al. (2001), 162 B.C.A.C. 66; 264 W.A.C. 66; 2001 BCCA 742, refd to. [para. Berenstein v. Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles (1996), 111 F.T.R. 231 (......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT