Richer v. Saskatchewan Penitentiary (Independent Chairperson) et al., 2006 FC 1188

• Judge: Strayer, D.J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 12, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 1188;(2006), 300 F.T.R. 249 (FC)

Richer v. Sask. Penitentiary (2006), 300 F.T.R. 249 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.028

Jean Richer (applicant) v. Maria Lynn Freeland, Independent Chairperson, Saskatchewan Penitentiary and Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

(T-2303-05; 2006 FC 1188)

Indexed As: Richer v. Saskatchewan Penitentiary (Independent Chairperson) et al.

Federal Court

Strayer, D.J.

October 5, 2006.

Summary:

The Independent Chairperson of the Saskatchewan Penitentiary found an inmate guilty of refusing to provide a urine sample when it was demanded of him pursuant to s. 54(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The inmate applied to quash the conviction.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Prisons - Topic 1113

Administration - Prisoners' rights - Mandatory urine testing - [See all Prisons - Topic 1551 ].

Prisons - Topic 1551

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Refusing to provide mandatory or random urine sample - An inmate applied to quash his conviction for refusing to provide a urine sample when it was demanded of him pursuant to s. 54(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act - The applicant argued that s. 60 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR) defined the laboratory that could conduct the test of urine samples as "a laboratory authorized by Commissioner's Directives to analyze samples" - He complained that Commissioner's Directive 566-10 merely stated that "a laboratory contracted by CSC [Correctional Services Canada] to analyze samples is an authorized laboratory for the purposes of section 60 of the CCRR" - The Federal Court dismissed the application - A laboratory in Mississauga was under contract with CSC to test samples from all over Canada - On his request, CSC had advised the applicant as to the name of that laboratory - That adequately complied with the requirements of the Regulations and the Commissioner's Directive with respect to the designation of a laboratory - See paragraph 4.

Prisons - Topic 1551

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Refusing to provide mandatory or random urine sample - An inmate applied to quash his conviction for refusing to provide a urine sample when it was demanded of him pursuant to s. 54(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act - The applicant objected that while s. 60 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations referred to "analysis, using an approved procedure, by a laboratory" there was no definition of "approved procedure" in the Regulations or in Commissioner's Directive 566-10 - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Commissioner's Directive defined what constituted positive and negative test results, the required quantity of urine to be sampled, and the definition of what would be regarded as a diluted sample - Annex A of the Directive specified various classes of intoxicants and the cut-off levels of ingredients which amounted to a positive or negative test result - The Directive adequately provided criteria for testing - It did not have to set out the process actually employed for the testing - See paragraph 5.

Prisons - Topic 1551

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Refusing to provide mandatory or random urine sample - An inmate applied to quash his conviction for refusing to provide a urine sample when it was demanded of him pursuant to s. 54(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act - The applicant argued that there was no proper random selection among the prison population of the Prince Albert Penitentiary - He relied on s. 63(2) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations which provided that inmates were to be chosen for testing "by random selection from among the names of the entire inmate population of the penitentiary" - The Federal Court dismissed the application - It appeared that two lists of inmates were made: one comprising those in maximum security, and another consisting of those in medium security - A random selection was made within each of those groups - That constituted a "random selection from the ... entire inmate population" - See paragraph 6.

Prisons - Topic 1551

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Refusing to provide mandatory or random urine sample - An inmate applied to quash his conviction for refusing to provide a urine sample when it was demanded of him pursuant to s. 54(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act - The applicant pointed to s. 60 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations which defined "sample" as a "quantity of unadulterated urine sufficient to permit analysis" - On that basis, he objected to the provisions in Annex B of Commissioner's Directive 566-10, which provided for "Analysis of diluted/adulterated samples" - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court accepted the respondent's argument that there was a constant possibility that samples provided by inmates would be either diluted or adulterated - Annex B therefore provided criteria for identifying such spurious samples as part of the process of testing samples provided by inmates - The process was not inconsistent with the requirements of the Directive - See paragraph 7.

Prisons - Topic 1551

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Refusing to provide mandatory or random urine sample - An inmate applied to quash his conviction for refusing to provide a urine sample when it was demanded of him pursuant to s. 54(b) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act - The applicant argued that he was not given proper notice of the disciplinary offence as required by s. 25 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations where the "notification to provide a urine sample" and "inmate offence report and notification of charge" mis-referred to Commissioner's Directive 566-10 - He argued that either he should have been advised of the correct directive number or he should have been given the correct directive along with the notice - The Federal Court dismissed the application - At best, the references to the Commissioner's Directive were provided only to indicate the authority for the notification - It was not necessary that the officer serving the notice provide the actual legal authorities for it - The notification of charge delivered to the applicant complied with s. 25 of the Regulations - See paragraphs 8 to 10.

Cases Noticed:

Hendrickson v. Kent Institution Disciplinary Court (Independent Chairperson) (1990), 32 F.T.R. 296 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations (Can.), Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, sect. 25 [para. 8]; sect. 60 [para. 4]; sect. 63(2) [para. 6].

Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations - see Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Jean Richer, on his own behalf;

Ms. Crooks, for the respondent

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 12, 2006, at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Strayer, D.J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on October 5, 2006.