Tremblay v. Laval Institution Disciplinary Tribunal et al., (1987) 11 F.T.R. 156 (TD)

• Judge: Rouleau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 25, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 11 F.T.R. 156 (TD)

Tremblay v. Laval Institution (1987), 11 F.T.R. 156 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Regis Tremblay, an inmate currently confined in the Special Handling Unit of the Regional Reception Centre, a super-maximum security penitentiary at 246 Montee Gagnon, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, District of Terrebonne (applicant) v. Presiding Officer of Disciplinary Tribunal of the Laval Institution; Marc-Andre Lafleur, in his capacity as Director of the Laval Institution; Earned Remission Committee of the Laval Institution and Rheal LeBlanc, Correctional Service Commissioner (respondents)

(No. T-1440-86)

Indexed As: Tremblay v. Laval Institution Disciplinary Tribunal et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Rouleau, J.

June 2, 1987.

Summary:

Tremblay and others were present when another inmate was wounded by a homemade pick. Tremblay was immediately placed in administrative segregation and the Director of the Institution recommended that he be transferred to a Special Handling Unit. Tremblay was subsequently transferred. Tremblay was found guilty by the Disciplinary Tribunal of possession of contraband contrary to s. 39(i) of the Penitentiary Service Regulations and was sentenced to 30 days' punitive disassociation. Tremblay's request that he be represented by counsel at the disciplinary hearing had been denied. Tremblay applied for certiorari to quash, inter alia, the finding of guilt on the ground that the denial of representation by counsel violated his right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported at (1987), 11 F.T.R. 1, allowed the application. The court held that having regard to the seriousness of the charge and the potential penalty, the fact that there were points of law and that the inmate lacked capacity to fully present those points of law, Tremblay had a right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. The failure to allow such representation violated Tremblay's right to liberty. The Disciplinary Tribunal subsequently applied for clarification of the judgment concerning the validity of the decision of the Earned Remission Committee and the transfer decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in the following decision held that the decision of the Earned Remission Committee was invalid because Tremblay was denied counsel. The court held that the transfer decision was valid.

Civil Rights - Topic 646

Liberty - Limitations on - Prisoners and imprisonment - A prison inmate was found guilty of an offence by a Disciplinary Tribunal - The Tribunal sentenced the inmate to 30 days' punitive disassociation - The inmate was denied counsel at the hearing - The Earned Remission Committee denied the inmate credit for ten days earned remission based on the actions of the Disciplinary Tribunal - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that because the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision was invalid because the inmate was not represented by counsel, so too was the decision of the Earned Remission Committee - See paragraph 5.

Civil Rights - Topic 4654

Right to counsel - Entitlement - Administrative proceedings - Inmate disciplinary hearing - Earned remission hearing - [see Civil Rights - Topic 646 above].

Prisons - Topic 1025

Administration - Powers re prisoners - Placement in special handling units - A prison inmate was transferred to a special handling unit following his involvement in a stabbing incident where another inmate was wounded with a homemade pick - A decision by the Disciplinary Tribunal convicting the inmate and sentencing him for the offence was quashed because the inmate was not represented by counsel - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held however that the decision to transfer the inmate to a special handling unit was not dependent on the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal and must be examined independently - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Cases Noticed:

Howard v. Presiding Officer, Inmate Disciplinary Court of Stony Mountain Institution, [1984] 2 F.C. 642; 57 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 5].

Cardinal et al. v. Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Miller, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 613; 63 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 337(5) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Lucie Lemonde, for the applicant;

David Lucas, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Daignault and Lemonde, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Frank Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard on May 25, 1987, at Montréal, Quebec, before Rouleau, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 2, 1987.