Richer v. Saskatchewan Penitentiary (Independent Chairperson) et al., (2003) 237 F.T.R. 252 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 237 F.T.R. 252 (FC);2003 FC 887

Richer v. Sask. Penitentiary (2003), 237 F.T.R. 252 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.058

Jean Richer (applicant) v. Leo Pinel, Independent Chairperson, Saskatchewan Penitentiary and Attorney General of Canada (respondents)

(T-335-02; 2003 FC 887)

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

Federal Court

Russell, J.

July 16, 2003.

Summary:

An Independent Chairperson found a prison inmate guilty under s. 40(l) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of the disciplinary offence of failing to provide a random urine sample. The inmate applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - [See Prisons - Topic 1551 ].

Prisons - Topic 1551

Discipline - Inmates - Offences - Refusing to provide mandatory or random urine sample - An Independent Chairperson found a prison inmate guilty under s. 40(l) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of the disciplinary offence of failing to provide a random urine sample - The Federal Court dismissed the inmate's judicial review application - The court rejected the submission that the inmate's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied, because a random urinalysis request did not result in a separate "detention" invoking the right to counsel - The inmate received a full and fair hearing on all of the points he wished to raise - The Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations did not require an explanation of why the urine was being collected, as the purpose was set out in the legislation and was a matter of public record - Finally, the requirement that staff members "take all reasonable steps to resolve the matter informally, where possible" was not violated by immediately charging the inmate, where there were no other "reasonable steps" to take - See paragraphs 10 to 28.

Prisons - Topic 1565

Discipline - Inmates - Judicial review - Scope of - An inmate sought judicial review of the decision of the Independent Chairperson finding him guilty of a disciplinary offence - The Federal Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness - See paragraph 9.

Prisons - Topic 1566

Discipline - Inmates - Judicial review - Grounds - [See Prisons - Topic 1551 ].

Prisons - Topic 1607

Discipline - Inmates - Disciplinary hearing - Procedural fairness - [See Prisons - Topic 1551 ].

Cases Noticed:

Barnaby v. Canada, [1995] F.C.J. No. 1541 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Forrest v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 219 F.T.R. 82 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Savard v. Canada (Procureur général) (1997), 128 F.T.R. 271 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Picard v. Tribunal disciplinaire d'l'établissement Drummond (Président) (1995), 107 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Fieldhouse v. Canada (1995), 40 C.R.(4th) 263 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Weatherall v. Canada (Attorney General), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 872; 154 N.R. 392, refd to. [para. 13].

Latham v. Canada (Solicitor General) et al., [1984] 2 F.C. 734 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Everingham v. Ontario, [1996] O.J. No. 55, refd to. [para. 15].

Olson v. Canada et al. (1990), 39 F.T.R. 77 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Henry v. Canada (1987), 10 F.T.R. 176; 29 C.R.R. 149 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Hendrickson v. Kent Institution Disciplinary Court (Independent Chairperson) (1990), 32 F.T.R. 296 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Schimmens v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (1998), 157 F.T.R. 118 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Verreault v. Canada (Procureur général) et al., [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 897 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

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

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 40(l), sect. 41(1), sect. 54, sect. 56, sect. 57 [para. 6].

Corrections and Conditional Release Act Regulations (Can.), Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, sect. 25, sect. 61, sect. 63 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Jean Richer, on his own behalf;

Bruce Gibson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Bruce Gibson, Department of Justice, Saskatchewan Regional Office, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, for the respondent.

This application was heard on May 22, 2003, at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 16, 2003.