Mooring v. National Parole Board et al., (1996) 70 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

JudgeGonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 08, 1996
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);[1997] 2 SCR 3;1996 CanLII 140 (SCC)

Mooring v. Nat. Parole Bd. (1996), 70 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    115 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

The National Parole Board and The Warden of Kent Institution (appellants) v. Ian Ross Mooring (respondent) and The Attorney General for Ontario and The Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenors)

(24436)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,

Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

February 8, 1996.

Summary:

Mooring was sentenced to a total of nine years' imprisonment for various offences. While released on mandatory supervision, he was arrested and charged with other offen­ces. These offences were eventually stayed because the Crown believed that the ac­cused's Charter rights were violated and the evidence necessary to support a conviction would be excluded. Nevertheless, the Na­tional Parole Board revoked his mandatory supervision, which the Appeal Division of the Board affirmed. Mooring applied for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid and relief under s. 24 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking an order for his release.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported in 82 C.C.C.(3d) 289, dismissed the petition. Mooring appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Taggart, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 50 B.C.A.C. 255; 82 W.A.C. 255, allowed the appeal and quashed the Board's decision. The Parole Board appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Major and McLachlin, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 9056

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - National Parole Board - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8363

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Jurisdiction - Court of competent jurisdiction - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the National Parole Board was not a "court of compe­tent jurisdiction" under s. 24 of the Charter for the purpose of excluding relevant evidence at a hearing on the basis of a Charter rights denial - Assuming the Board had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter, it had no power to grant the remedy sought, given the structure and function of the Board and the language of the Board's constituting statute - The Board acted in neither a judicial nor quasi-judicial manner - It acted in an inquisitorial capacity without adversarial parties - The Board's constituting statute did not give it jurisdiction to exclude relevant evidence; conversely, the Board had a duty to consider "all available infor­mation that is relevant" - See paragraphs 1 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 5666.4

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole hearing - Evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8363 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5666.4

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole hearing - Evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the procedures to be followed by the Na­tional Parole Board when faced with evi­dence gathered in violation of a parolee's rights, based on the Board's duty to act fairly - The court stated that "wherever information or 'evidence' is presented to the Board, the Board must make a deter­mination concerning the source of that information, and decide whether or not it would be fair to allow the information to affect the Board's decision." - The Board will often be guided by court decisions respecting exclusion of relevant evidence (including decisions on s. 24(2) of the Charter), but cases under s. 24(2) should not be determinative since different con­siderations apply in the parole context - See paragraphs 25 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 52 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 161; 21 C.R.R. 76, refd to. [para. 14].

Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; 122 N.R. 361; 47 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 14].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employ­ment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358, refd to. [para. 14].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Mitchell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 570; 6 N.R. 389, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 19].

Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Grimsley v. Dodson (1982), 696 F.2d 303, refd to. [para. 23].

Unites States v. Winsett (1975), 518 F.2d 51 (9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 24].

Pratt v. United States Parole Commission (1989), 717 F.Supp. 382 (E.D.N.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

United States ex rel. Sperling v. Fitzpatrick (1970), 426 F.2d 1161 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 24].

United States v. Bazzano (1983), 712 F.2d 826 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 24].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353; 49 C.R.(3d) 35; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 577; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 118; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 44, refd to. [para. 26].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481, refd to. [para. 30].

New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 967; 183 N.R. 229; 163 N.B.R.(2d) 97; 419 A.P.R. 97, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Doyle, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 597; 9 N.R. 285; 10 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 45; 17 A.P.R. 45; 29 C.C.C.(2d) 177; 35 C.R.N.S. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215; 30 C.C.C.(2d) 424; 70 D.L.R.(3d) 136; 34 C.R.N.S. 207, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Pickett (1975), 28 C.C.C.(2d) 297 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Association v. Douglas College, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570; 118 N.R. 340; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 94, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 577; 128 N.R. 81; 48 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 7 C.R.(4th) 117, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. S.(S.) - see R. v. Seaboyer and Gayme.

R. v. Garrett, [1907] 1 K.B. 881, refd to. [para. 65].

Nash v. Newfoundland (1982), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 490 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

United Nurses of Alberta, Local 115 v. Foothills Provincial General Hospital Board (1987), 81 A.R. 292; 40 D.L.R.(4th) 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Toker and McKinney (1984), 54 A.R. 97; 11 D.L.R.(4th) 456 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 193; 41 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513; 23 D.L.R.(4th) 503; 18 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,203; 13 C.R.R. 64, refd to. [para. 68].

Conway v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 14 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 96].

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

Elkins v. United States (1960), 364 U.S. 206, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 106].

United States v. Workman (1978), 585 F.2d 1205, refd to. [para. 107].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (1982), 67 C.C.C.(2d) 252 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Pearson (E.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 665; 144 N.R. 243; 52 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 118].

Statutes Noticed:

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 24 [para. 11].

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 4(g) [para. 27]; sect. 100, sect. 101(a), sect. 101(b), sect. 101(f), sect. 107(1), sect. 147(1) [para. 11]

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chamber's English Dictionary (7th Ed. 1988) [para. 66].

Cole, David P., and Manson, Allen, Release From Imprisonment: The Law of Sentencing, Parole and Judicial Review (1990), pp. 428, 431 [para. 17].

Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (8th Ed. 1990) [para. 66].

Côté, P.A., The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (1984), p. 236 [para. 68].

Counsel:

S. David Frankel, Q.C., and Sandra E. Weafer, for the appellants;

Jeffrey R. Ray and John Conroy, for the respondent;

Hart Schwartz and Dianne Dougall, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Kevin E. Gillese, for the intervenor, the Attor­ney General of British Columbia.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellants;

Jeffrey R. Ray, New Westminster, B.C., for the respondent;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, B.C., for the intervenor, the Attorney Gen­eral of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard on May 31, 1995, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On February 8, 1996, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Sopinka, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

Lamer, C.J.C. - see paragraphs 33 to 39;

La Forest, J. - see paragraph 40;

Major, J. (McLachlin, J., concurring), dissenting - see paragraphs 41 to 119.

To continue reading

Request your trial

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