Paxton v. Calgary Remand Centre et al., (2014) 590 A.R. 335 (QB)

• Judge: Tilleman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 19, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 590 A.R. 335 (QB);2014 ABQB 438

Paxton v. Calgary Remand Centre (2014), 590 A.R. 335 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. AU.044

Dustin Ward Paxton (applicant) v. The Director of the Calgary Remand Centre and the Appeal Adjudicator (D.W. Batchelor)

(respondents)

(1201 13549; 2014 ABQB 438)

Indexed As: Paxton v. Calgary Remand Centre et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Tilleman, J.

July 23, 2014.

Summary:

Paxton, an inmate at a remand centre, was convicted of disobeying an order and assaulting a guard. An appeal adjudicator affirmed the decision. Paxton applied for habeas corpus and judicial review.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that it was not necessary to decide the matter on the basis of habeas corpus. The appeal adjudicator's decision was unreasonable in that he had inappropriately relied on findings of fact that were different from those found by the hearing adjudicator. However, Paxton's sentence had long been served. The court declined to grant judicial review to quash the decision and remit the matter as it was now moot.

Administrative Law - Topic 3221

Judicial review - General - Unreasonableness of decision attacked - Reasonableness simpliciter - [See second Prisons - Topic 1566 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5015

Judicial review - Certiorari - Grounds for granting certiorari - Manifestly unreasonable decisions - [See second Prisons - Topic 1566 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 5198

Judicial review - Certiorari - Discretionary bars to issue of certiorari - No useful purpose served by certiorari - [See second Prisons - Topic 1566 ].

Habeas Corpus - Topic 2

General - When available - [See Habeas Corpus - Topic 1505 ].

Habeas Corpus - Topic 1505

Bars to issue of writ - Existence of statutory appeals - Paxton, an inmate at a remand centre, was convicted of disobeying an order and assaulting a guard - An appeal adjudicator affirmed the decision - Paxton applied for habeas corpus and judicial review - At issue was whether Paxton had access to habeas corpus in light of the 2007 amendments to the Corrections Act - The Crown submitted that the new procedure for disciplinary hearings provided a "complete, comprehensive and expert procedure for review of an administrative decision" such that the court should decline to hear the habeas corpus application - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, noting that this was a concurrent habeas corpus application, found that the statutory scheme under ss. 15 to 15.3 of the Corrections Act was no less advantageous in this case than habeas corpus - Alberta had moved toward a "complete, comprehensive and expert procedure for review of an administrative decision" - For the resolution of this application, the exception was engaged and, therefore, it was not necessary to decide the matter on the basis of habeas corpus - See paragraphs 59 to 71.

Prisons - Topic 1547

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Assault - [See both Prisons - Topic 1566 ].

Prisons - Topic 1565

Discipline - Inmates - Judicial review or appeals - Scope of - Paxton, an inmate at a remand centre, was convicted of disobeying an order and assaulting a guard and was sentenced accordingly - An appeal adjudicator affirmed the decision - Paxton applied for judicial review - At issue was the standard of judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the standard of review was reasonableness - Paxton's argument boiled down to whether the appeal adjudicator properly considered Paxton's defence of self defence - This was a question of mixed fact and law - See paragraphs 72 to 86.

Prisons - Topic 1566

Discipline - Inmates - Judicial review or appeals - Grounds - Guards Sutton and Kent were conducting a security check at a remand centre - When Paxton's cell was unlocked, Kent told Paxton to stand back - He refused - Sutton put his hand on Paxton's chest - Paxton hit Sutton's forearm - Paxton was charged with disobeying an order and assaulting a guard - Paxton argued self defence - A hearing adjudicator rejected the defence and convicted Paxton of assault but acquitted him of disobeying an order on the basis that it was not clear that Paxton had heard the order - Paxton appealed - The appeal adjudicator affirmed the decision, rejecting the defence of self defence as "fatuous" - Paxton applied for judicial review, asserting that the appeal adjudicator had effectively characterized the assault as an absolute liability offence, leaving no room for any defence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected this argument - The appeal adjudicator had concluded that there was no air of reality to the defence and that he need not consider it further - The mere description of the defence as "fatuous" did not constitute an error - See paragraphs 87 and 88.

Prisons - Topic 1566

Discipline - Inmates - Judicial review or appeals - Grounds - Guards Sutton and Kent were conducting a security check at a remand centre - When Paxton's cell was unlocked, Kent told Paxton to stand back - He refused - Sutton put his hand on Paxton's chest - Paxton hit Sutton's forearm - Paxton was charged with disobeying an order and assaulting a guard - Paxton argued self defence - A hearing adjudicator rejected the defence and convicted Paxton of assault but acquitted him of disobeying an order on the basis that it was not clear that Paxton had heard the order - Paxton appealed - The appeal adjudicator affirmed the decision, although he found that Paxton had heard the order to stand back - Paxton applied for judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the appeal adjudicator's decision was unreasonable in that he had inappropriately relied on findings of fact that were different from those found by the hearing adjudicator - The appeal adjudicator had relied on those facts regarding the first charge to confirm the finding of guilt on the second charge - The appeal adjudicator's chain of reasoning was unintelligible and unjustifiable, given the hearing adjudicator's findings - However, Paxton's sentence had long been served - The court declined to grant judicial review, quash the decision and remit the matter as it was now moot - See paragraphs 89 to 97.

Cases Noticed:

Currie v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al. (2006), 407 A.R. 275; 2006 ABQB 858, refd to. [para. 19].

May et al. v. Ferndale Institution et al. (2005), 343 N.R. 69; 220 B.C.A.C. 1; 362 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 82, refd to. [para. 23].

Desouza v. Director of Calgary Correctional Centre et al. (2008), 450 A.R. 127; 2008 ABQB 294, refd to. [para. 24].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 24].

Khela v. Mission Institution (Warden) et al. (2011), 312 B.C.A.C. 217; 531 W.A.C. 217; 2011 BCCA 450, affd. (2014), 455 N.R. 279; 351 B.C.A.C. 91; 599 W.A.C. 91; 2014 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 32].

Libo-on v. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre (Director) et al. (2004), 362 A.R. 231; 2004 ABQB 416, refd to. [para. 34].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 35].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 35].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 36].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) (2003), 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 36].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 38].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 38].

Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 (2013), 445 N.R. 1; 404 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1048 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 39].

Edmonton Police Service v. Furlong et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 191; 567 W.A.C. 191; 2013 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 42].

Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761; 373 N.R. 339; 236 O.A.C. 371; 2008 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 48].

Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 55].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 55].

Nortel Networks Inc. v. Calgary (City) et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 325; 438 W.A.C. 325; 2008 ABCA 370, leave to appeal denied (2009), 398 N.R. 381 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Ha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 316 N.R. 299; 2004 FCA 49, refd to. [para. 57].

Shephard v. Fortin (2004), 325 N.R. 158; 2004 FCA 254, refd to. [para. 57].

Shephard v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police - see Shephard v. Fortin.

John v. National Parole Board (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 264; 512 W.A.C. 264; 2011 BCCA 188, leave to appeal refused (2011), 430 N.R. 392; 318 B.C.A.C. 319; 541 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

Woodhouse v. William Head Institution (Warden) (2012), 316 B.C.A.C. 80; 537 W.A.C. 80; 2012 BCCA 45, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 2].

Graham (S.) v. R. (2011), 275 O.A.C. 200; 2011 ONCA 138, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 2].

R. v. Latham (B.R.) (2009), 324 Sask.R. 87; 451 W.A.C. 87; 2009 SKCA 26, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 2].

Armaly v. Correctional Service of Canada et al. (2001), 299 A.R. 188; 266 W.A.C. 188; 2001 ABCA 280, refd to. [para. 65, footnote 2].

Lemoy v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 869; 2009 FC 448, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Cairney (M.J.) (2013), 450 N.R. 1; 561 A.R. 192; 594 W.A.C. 192; 2013 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Cinous (J.) (2002), 285 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 88].

Counsel:

Andrea L. Serink, for the applicant;

Christine Nugent, for the respondents.

This application was heard on March 19, 2014, by Tilleman, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on July 23, 2014.