Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al., 2007 ABCA 263

• Judge: Côté, McFadyen and Slatter, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: August 16, 2007
• Citations: 2007 ABCA 263;(2007), 412 A.R. 215 (CA)

Trang v. Edmonton Remand Centre (2007), 412 A.R. 215 (CA);

      404 W.A.C. 215

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. AU.043

De Trang, Tuan Quoc Trang, Binh Quoc Trang, Cuong Quoc Trang, Thao Mai Dao, James Edward Mah, Man Kit Chan, Alex Hang Chan, Donald Cheung, Vi Quoc Tang, Tien Lai Lam, Long Nguyen, Jerry Nguyen, Thi Hoang Le, Joseph Vincent Kochan, Anh Le Tran, Josephine Soo Yun Voon, Hiep Quang Le, Rocky Allan Simmons, Phong Huy Tran, Adrian Tiburico Vergara, Vu Hang Trinh, Helen Hoang Nguyen, Bao Minh Tran and Willy T. Lau (respondents/applicants) v. The Director of the Edmonton Remand Centre, The Director of Court and Prisoner Services and The Director of Security Operations Branch (appellants/respondents) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Ly Duy Phan and Sai Ming Fok (not parties to the appeal)

(0603-0338-AC; 2007 ABCA 263)

Indexed As: Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, McFadyen and Slatter, JJ.A.

August 16, 2007.

Summary:

Inmates alleged that the unsafe conditions in which they were transported by the Edmonton Remand Centre and Court and Prisoner Services violated their rights under ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported 407 A.R. 328; 2006 ABQB 834, held that the transportation conditions did not constitute cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12), but did violate their s. 7 Charter right to life and security of the person. Given the state's arbitrary and irrational policies respecting prisoner transportation, the deprivation of that right was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The court determined what exact conditions violated s. 7 and suggested what improved transportation conditions might be necessary to avoid a further s. 7 challenge. The Director of the Remand Centre appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. This was not an appropriate case in which to grant general declarations respecting the vans used to transport prisoners. In any event, no violation of s. 7 was disclosed on the record.

Civil Rights - Topic 201

Life - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1369.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1369.3

Security of the person - Institutional inmates - Transportation - A trial judge held that the conditions in vans used to transport prisoners between remand centres, institutions, court appearances, etc., violated the inmates' right to right to life and security of the person contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - Although mere inmate discomfort did not trigger s. 7, because "serious psychological and physical suffering" was required, the state's approach to inmate transportation was arbitrary and irrational - Although the objective of public safety through securing inmates and ensuring officer safety was valid, that had to be balanced with the state's obligation respecting inmate safety and comfort, which was virtually ignored - The judge determined what vehicle deficiencies threatened inmate life and security of the person interests and stated that "if the [state] do not undertake a serious analysis of the practicality of installing handholds or front- facing, impact-resistant seat backs, and an impact resistant barrier for the inmates at the front of the cage, they will be facing another application ..." - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on the ground that s. 7 was not engaged - Section 7 did not replace or supplement tort law, product liability law or the rules respecting manufacturing standards for vehicles - Even if security of the person was affected, no principle of fundamental justice was engaged, let alone a principle of fundamental justice that was "vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice" - Section 7 was not for "adjudication of policy matters" - The court stated that "the inadequate and even negligent or irrational implementation of government policy, including the design of prison vans, does not engage a fundamental principle of justice" and "s. 7 has primarily been used to review legislation, not government actions or policy" - See paragraphs 26 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1369.3 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.25

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of rights - A trial judge granted a declaration that the conditions in vans used to transport prisoners between remand centres, institutions, court appearances, etc., violated the inmates' right to life and security of the person contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that declaratory relief was inappropriate - The declaration was generic as there was no finding as to which prisoners were transported in which vans on which dates - There was no finding that any of them were prejudiced or injured - The declaratory relief granted was theoretical and abstract and of no practical use to any of the prisoners - The court stated that "general declarations purporting to fix the rights of third parties over an indefinite period of time in an indefinite number of circumstances are an improper invocation of the jurisdiction of a superior court. Abstract declarations are sometimes granted when the issue is of public importance, and there is no other way to resolve it, but not when there are alternative remedies available. ... Declaratory relief in abstract inquisitorial proceedings such as these is not appropriate where concrete legal proceedings by directly affected third parties can address the issues. ... Private litigants are not entitled to use the courts as an indirect method of altering public policy decisions, especially those involving the expenditure of public funds." - The proceedings were effectively turned into a public inquiry, which was inappropriate - See paragraphs 13 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 8547

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Principles of fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1369.3 ].

Prisons - Topic 1026.1

Administration - Powers re prisoners - Transportation of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1369.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Chan (A.H.) et al. (2003), 342 A.R. 201; 22 Alta. L.R.(4th) 278; 2003 ABQB 759, refd to. [para. 3].

Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al. (2004), 360 A.R. 133; 2004 ABQB 497, refd to. [para. 4].

Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al. (2001), 304 A.R. 22; 2001 ABQB 884, refd to. [para. 7].

Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al., [2002] A.R. Uned. 188; 2002 ABQB 357, refd to. [para. 8].

Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al. (2002), 329 A.R. 292; 2002 ABQB 1042, refd to. [para. 9].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 10].

Trang et al. v. Edmonton Remand Centre (Director) et al. (2005), 363 A.R. 167; 343 W.A.C. 167; 2005 ABCA 66, refd to. [para. 11].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 14].

Purba v. Ryan (2006), 397 A.R. 251; 384 W.A.C. 251; 2006 ABCA 229, refd to. [para. 14].

Wakeford v. Canada (2002), 155 O.A.C. 78; 58 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Solosky v. Canada, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 821; 30 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 15].

Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in v. Yukon (2007), 238 B.C.A.C. 123; 393 W.A.C. 123; 2007 YKCA 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Terrasses Zarolega Inc., Zappia, Robinson, Lepine and Gaty v. Régie des Installations Olympiques, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 94; 38 N.R. 411, refd to. [para. 15].

Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (1997), 126 F.T.R. 229; 37 Imm. L.R.(2d) 278 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Chan (N.C.) (2005), 387 A.R. 123; 2005 ABQB 615, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Munoz (K.M.) (2007), 411 A.R. 257; 69 Alta. L.R.(4th) 231; 2006 ABQB 901, refd to. [para. 19].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 22].

Thomas v. More, [1918] K.B. 555, refd to. [para. 23].

Maltby et al. v. Saskatchewan Attorney General et al. (1984), 34 Sask.R. 177; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 745 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Parker (T.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 1; 49 O.R.(3d) 481; 188 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 30].

Gosselin v. Quebec (Procureur général), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; 298 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 31].

Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791; 335 N.R. 25; 2005 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 32].

May et al. v. Ferndale Institution et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 809; 343 N.R. 69; 220 B.C.A.C. 1; 362 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 82, refd to. [para. 38].

Counsel:

P.J. Faulds, Q.C., and S.E. Carey, for the appellants;

N.J. Whitling and T.M. Engel, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on June 25, 2007, before Côté, McFadyen and Slatter, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On August 16, 2007, Slatter, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.