Date: 19990819
Docket: T-2303-98
BETWEEN:
BLAKE WRIGHT,
Applicant,
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J.
[1] In preparing a report for the Warden and Deputy Warden of Mission Institution, completed on May 20, 1998, the authors of the report referred to the applicant"s ex-fiancée as his victim. The applicant contests the validity of that statement. The applicant filed an Inmate Grievance for that purpose. It is the decision that was made at the Third Level Grievance Review that must be the subject of the present proceeding although the applicant"s request for judicial review identifies the May 20, 1998 statement as the subject. The respondent is correct, however, that that statement is not a "decision" by a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
[2] The Third Level Grievance Review decision refused the applicant"s request for a retraction of the statement, and an apology on the ground that the report in question was for internal purposes only and had not been placed on the applicant"s case management file. The report was an internal audit of the work that had been done by the applicant"s case management team as it related to his security classification.
[3] The applicant and his ex-fiancée met through another inmate while he was incarcerated at Mission Institution as a result of his conviction for offences of buggery and sexual assaults committed in 1984. He was serving an indefinite sentence. Marriage was planned. These plans were cancelled. The applicant states that this occurred as a result of his initiative. The ex-fiancée subsequently complained to the RCMP that the applicant had threatened her and that she feared for her safety. The applicant alleges that these complaints were vindictive and were an attempt to make life difficult for him after he broke off their relationship (at the time a prospective transfer from Mission, where he had been classified as a medium security risk, to Ferndale, the applicant having been reclassified as a minimum security risk, was contemplated.) The ex-fiancée never filed a written complaint with the police, and subsequently refused to co-operate with the police on any investigation of her oral complaint against the applicant. Correctional Services, however, had in its possession copies of the letters that formed the basis of the ex-fiancée"s assertions. The applicant states that these should be placed in the context of the letters he received from her, and that the letters contain mutually explicit sexual material.
[4] The term "victim" is defined in section 2 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act R.S.C. 1992, c. 20, as a person who has suffered harm as a result of the commission of an offence. Subsection 26(1) of the Act requires that certain information about an offender be disclosed to the victim, at the victim"s request. This includes, for example, the location of the institution where the offender is incarcerated, the date on which he is to be released on escorted or unescorted temporary absences, or on parole. Subsection 26(3) states that such information shall also be disclosed to persons who satisfy the Commissioner that he or she suffered physical or emotional damage as a result of an act of the offender that was the subject of a complaint to the police, even if the offender was not prosecuted or convicted for that act.
[5] As I understand the applicant"s position, it is that his ex-fiancée, Ms. McKim, was not a victim because he had not been convicted of any offence regarding her, and there should not be disclosure to her pursuant to section 26 unless he is given an opportunity to contest the assertion that she was harmed as a result of an act of his, which act became the subject of a complaint to the police. In addition, despite the assertion that the May 1998 report would not be placed on the applicant"s case management file, the respondent concedes that as a result of a clerical error, the report was placed on the applicant"s case management file, but subsequently removed.
[6] A review of the applicant"s security classification, dated April 29, 1998, contains the statement that he has a responsibility to demonstrate to decision-makers that his risk to the community is manageable within a minimum security environment, "despite his Dangerous Offender designation and the concerns raised by his victim/ex-fiancée.". As noted, Correctional Services" officers knew about Ms. McKim"s concerns and the letters that the applicant had written to her. This information is properly part of his case management file. The existence of the letters caused a request for a further psychological assessment of the applicant and a reassessment of his security classification. These consequences, however, are independent of the May 20, 1998 report. The reference in the security classification review to "the concerns raised by his victim/ex-fiancée" is not based on the statements in the report, and indeed draw a distinction between the applicant"s victim and his ex-fiancée.
[7] As far as the statement in the May 1998 report is concerned, it would appear to be inaccurate since the ex-fiancée was not a victim as defined in section 2 of the Act, nor can I conclude that at that point, the Commissioner (or his delegate) had determined that the conditions set out in subsection 26(3) of the Act had been satisfied to entitle Ms. McKim to information about the offender. Indeed, there is no indication that Ms. McKim has ever asked to be notified of the applicant"s whereabouts and release date pursuant to section 26 of the Act . If and when she does make such a request, a determination will be made as to whether she falls within the terms of the section.
[8] While the first level grievance review attempted to support the conclusion that Ms. McKim was a victim, neither the second nor the third level review attempted to do so. Those decisions were based on the conclusion that, whether the statement was right or wrong, it did not matter because no consequences flowed to the applicant as a result of the statement. This conclusion is clearly correct. The erroneous placing of the report on the applicant"s file had no consequences for him. In addition, the applicant knows that Ms. McKim has never made a request to be registered for the purposes of section 26 of the Act . He asserts this as a fact in his affidavit. No legal consequences flow from the erroneous assertion in the May 1998 report.
[9] For the reasons given the applicant"s judicial review application is dismissed.
(Sgd.) "B. Reed"
Judge
August 19, 1999
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-2303-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: BLAKE WRIGHT
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL.
REASONS FOR ORDER OF REED J.
DATED: August 19, 1999
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
| Mr. Blake Wright on his own behalf |
| Ms. Donnaree Nygard for Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenburg
Deputy Attorney General
| of Canada for Respondent |