Federal Court Decisions

     Date: 19990705

     Docket: T-1014-98

Between:

     MICHEL CÔTÉ,

     Plaintiff,

AND:

     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,

     Defendant.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Reasons for order delivered from the bench at

     Montréal, Quebec on Wednesday, June 23, 1999)

LEMIEUX J.

[1]      This is an application for judicial review under the provisions of s. 18.1 of the Federal Court Act by Michel Côté, an inmate currently at the Montée Saint-François institution, a federal minimum security penitentiary.

[2]      By a decision of October 29, 1997 the National Parole Board ("NPB") denied the plaintiff both full parole and day parole.

[3]      Mr. Côté appealed this decision by the NPB to the Appeal Division of the NPB ("the Appeal Division") pursuant to the provisions of s. 147 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act ("the Act").

[4]      One of the reasons given by Mr. Côté to the Appeal Division was based on s. 147(1)(d) of the Act. He alleged that the NPB had based [TRANSLATION] "its decision on erroneous or incomplete information", in the wording of that paragraph. His written submission to the Appeal Board on February 8, 1998 listed several documents which he believed were not in his record when the NPB took its decision. Section 147 reads as follows:

147. (1) Le délinquant visé par une décision de la Commission peut interjeter appel auprès de la Section d"appel pour l"un ou plusieurs des motifs suivants :          a) la Commission a violé un principe de justice fondamentale;          b) elle a commis une erreur de droit en rendant sa décision;          c) elle a contrevenu aux directives établies aux termes du paragraphe 151(2) ou ne les a pas appliquées;          d) elle a fondé sa décision sur des renseignements erronés ou incomplets;          e) elle a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou omis de l"exercer.      (2) Le vice-président de la Section d"appel peut refuser d"entendre un appel sans qu"il y ait réexamen complet du dossier dans les cas suivants lorsque, à son avis :          a) l"appel est mal fondé et vexatoire;          b) le recours envisagé ou la décision demandée ne relève pas de la compétence de la Commission;          c) l"appel est fondé sur des renseignements ou sur un nouveau projet de libération conditionnelle ou d"office qui n"existaient pas au moment où la décision visée par l"appel a été rendue;          d) lors de la réception de l"avis d"appel par la Section d"appel, le délinquant a quatre-vingt-dix jours ou moins à purger.      (3) Les délais et les modalités d"appel sont fixés par règlement.      (4) Au terme de la révision, la Section d"appel peut rendre l"une des décisions suivantes :          a) confirmer la décision visée par l"appel;          b) confirmer la décision visée par l"appel, mais ordonner un réexamen du cas avant la date normalement prévue pour le prochain examen;          c) ordonner un réexamen du cas et ordonner que la décision reste en vigueur malgré la tenue du nouvel examen;          d) infirmer ou modifier la décision visée par l"appel.      (5) Si sa décision entraîne la libération immédiate du délinquant, la Section d"appel doit être convaincue, à la fois, que :          a) la décision visée par l"appel ne pouvait raisonnablement être fondée en droit, en vertu d"une politique de la Commission ou sur les renseignements dont celle-ci disposait au moment de l"examen du cas;          b) le retard apporté à la libération du délinquant serait inéquitable.

147. (1) An offender may appeal a decision of the Board to the Appeal Division on the ground that the Board, in making its decision,          ( a) failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice;          ( b) made an error of law;          ( c) breached or failed to apply a policy adopted pursuant to subsection 151(2);          ( d) based its decision on erroneous or incomplete information; or          ( e) acted without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction.      (2) The Vice-Chairperson, Appeal Division, may refuse to hear an appel, without causing a full review of the case to be undertaken, where, in the opinion of the Vice-Chairperson,          ( a) the appeal is frivolous or vexatious;          ( b) the relief sought is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board;          ( c) the appeal is based on information or on a new parole or statutory release plan that was not before the Board when it rendered the decision appealed from; or          ( d) at the time the notice of appeal is received by the Appeal Division, the offender has ninety days or less to serve before being released from imprisonment.      (3) The time within which and the manner in which a decision of the Board may be appealed shall be as prescribed by the regulations.      (4) The Appeal Division, on the completion of a review of a decision appealed from, may          ( a) affirm the decision;          ( b) affirm the decision but order a further review of the case by the Board on a date earlier than the date otherwise provided for the next review;          ( c) order a new review of the case by the Board and order the continuation of the decision pending the review; or          ( d) reverse, cancel or vary the decision.      (5) The Appeal Division shall not render a decision under subsection (4) that results in the immediate release of an offender from imprisonment unless it is satisfied that          ( a) the decision appealed from cannot reasonably be supported in law, under the applicable policies of the Board, or on the basis of the information available to the Board in its review of the case; and          ( b) a delay in releasing the offender from imprisonment would be unfair.

[5]      The Appeal Division rendered its decision on April 16, 1998. It dismissed all Mr. Côté"s grounds of appeal and affirmed the NPB decision.

[6]      The Appeal Division wrote the following about the ground put forward by the plaintiff in his claim of incomplete information:

[TRANSLATION]

On reviewing your file, we are in a position to say that all or most of the aforementioned information in one way or another formed part of the documents available to the Board when it made its decision.

[7]      In my opinion, the above-quoted paragraph from the Appeal Board"s decision does not allow this Court to find that Mr. Côté"s record was complete and that the NPB had before it all the information required by the Act before making a decision on an inmate"s parole. Instead, the paragraph indicates that there was information that was not in the file. The Act"s purpose in s. 147 is simple. Before making a decision on releasing an inmate the NPB must have all the relevant information in the inmate"s file so that it can make an enlightened and fair decision.

[8]      In the circumstances, the NPB failed to perform a duty imposed by the law,

and this must be corrected by the Court.

---

[9]      For these reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision by the Appeal Division of the NPB on April 16, 1998 is quashed and a new hearing is ordered as soon as possible on the plaintiff"s parole applications before a group of members of the Board who did not take part in the decisions of October 29, 1997 and April 16, 1998.

François Lemieux      J U D G E

Ottawa, Ontario

July 5, 1999.

Certified true translation

Bernard Olivier, LL. B.

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT No.:      T-1014-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:      MICHEL CÔTÉ v.

             ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

PLACE OF HEARING:      MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING:      June 23, 1999

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      Lemieux J.

DATED:          July 5, 999

APPEARANCES:

Michel Aubin      for the applicant

Eric Lafrenière      for the respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Michel Aubin

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg      for the respondent

Deputy Attorney General of Canada