Veysey v. Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex et al., (2006) 217 O.A.C. 262 (DC)

• Judge: Lane, Chapnik and G.P. Smith, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: October 23, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2006), 217 O.A.C. 262 (DC)

Veysey v. Superintendent (2006), 217 O.A.C. 262 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.018

Timothy Veysey (applicant) v. Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

(447/05)

Indexed As: Veysey v. Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lane, Chapnik and G.P. Smith, JJ.

October 30, 2006.

Summary:

The Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex found an inmate guilty of the misconduct offence of assault. The inmate applied for certiorari to quash the Superintendent's decision. He argued procedural unfairness. The inmate also sought a declaration that the Inmate Misconduct provisions of Regulation 778, R.R.O. 1990, violated s. 7 of the Charter and were of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the application. There was no procedural unfairness (see paragraphs 1 to 39) and there was no factual matrix in which to consider the constitutional issues (see paragraphs 40 to 46).

Prisons - Topic 1562

Discipline - Inmates - Judicial review - Jurisdiction - The Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex, acting pursuant to the Inmate Misconduct provisions in Regulation 778, R.R.O. 1990, found an inmate guilty of the misconduct offence of assault - The inmate applied to the Ontario Divisional Court for certiorari to quash the Superintendent's decision - The Ontario Divisional Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application - See paragraphs 31 and 32.

Prisons - Topic 1607

Discipline - Inmates - Disciplinary hearing - Procedural fairness - The Ontario Divisional Court held that an inmate found guilty of the misconduct offence of assault was treated fairly under the Inmate Misconduct process found in Regulation 778, R.R.O. 1990: he was informed of the nature of the charge against him; he was provided with the opportunity to retain counsel, which he declined; he was offered an opportunity to question his accuser and to call witnesses on his behalf, both of which he declined - The inmate's case received a full and meaningful ministerial review - See paragraphs 1 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Kalin v. College of Teachers (Ont.) (2005), 198 O.A.C. 201; 75 O.R.(3d) 523 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 34, footnote 12].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 13].

Desroches v. R. (1983), 42 O.R.(2d) 758 (C.A.), consd. [para. 36].

Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602; 30 N.R. 119, consd. [para. 37, footnote 14].

Fraser v. Mudge et al., [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1132, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 15].

Morin v. Saskatoon Correctional Centre et al. (1990), 86 Sask.R. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 43, footnote 16].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 45, footnote 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ontario, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services' Policy on Discipline and Misconduct, generally [para. 6, footnote 3].

Counsel:

Nancy Charbonneau, for the applicant;

Daniel Guttman, for the respondents.

This application was heard on October 23, 2006, by Lane, Chapnik and G.P. Smith, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The decision of the Divisional Court was released on October 30, 2006.