Date: 20000814
Docket: T-1306-99
Ottawa, Ontario, August 14, 2000
Before: Pinard J.
Between:
MICHEL LAVOIE
Plaintiff
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed with costs.
| YVON PINARD JUDGE |
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20000814
Docket: T-1306-99
Between:
MICHEL LAVOIE
Plaintiff
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This application for judicial review is from a decision by the director of the La Macaza institution on July 12,1999, rejecting the second level grievance filed by the plaintiff and thus approving his involuntary transfer to holding unit E at the Archambault institution.
[2] The application for judicial review is dismissed because it is premature, and in any case entirely moot.
[3] An appropriate internal remedy exists which the plaintiff should have used before applying to this Court. The inmate grievance settlement procedure applicable in the case at bar, set out in ss. 74 to 82 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, and Commissioner's Directive No. 081, were not exhausted. There was a third level grievance remedy which the plaintiff completely ignored. It is well settled that the Court does not generally intervene when existing internal remedies have not been exhausted. This is indicated in particular by Brown and Evans in Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (Toronto: Canvasback Publishing, 1998):
| . . . the general rule is now that rights of appeal to an administrative tribunal or other administrative remedies should be exhausted before resorting to judicial review proceedings, unless the cost and inconvenience of doing so outweigh the benefits. |
[4] Further, specifically as regards the inmate grievance settlement procedure, this Court per my brother Teitelbaum J. said the following in Fortin v. Donnacona Institution (January 30, 1997), T-2052-95, at para. 30:
| . . . a detailed procedure exists for the redress of inmate complaints and grievances. This procedure offers adequate redress in the instant case, where there has not been any flagrant denial of natural justice. The applicant here has not exhausted the necessary alternative remedies. |
[5] Additionally, at the hearing in this Court counsel for the plaintiff confirmed that since the application for judicial review was filed his client had been paroled, having served two-thirds of his sentence. Counsel also informed the Court that because the plaintiff had not observed the conditions of this parole he had been subsequently re-incarcerated in an appropriate institution, not the Archambault institution. It thus seems clear that the circumstances have altered so that there is no longer any real issue between the parties that could be resolved by a decision in the action at bar (see Borowski v. Attorney General of Canada, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342). Clearly there is no longer any difference between the parties about the plaintiff's transfer to the Archambault institution, as since August 9, 1999 the plaintiff has been routinely paroled and, for failing to observe the latter's conditions, has been reincarcerated in another specialized institution. I do not intend to exercise my discretion to hear the application for judicial review on the merits nevertheless, as it involves no question of general importance and, as I indicated earlier, is premature.
[6] An order will accordingly issue dismissing the application for judicial review with costs.
| YVON PINARD JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 14, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| COURT No.: T-1306-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Michel Lavoie v. Attorney General of Canada |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: June 14, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J. |
| DATED: August 14, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
| Daniel Royer FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
| Éric Lafrenière FOR THE DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Labelle, Boudrault, Côté & Associés FOR THE PLAINTIFF |
Montréal, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE DEFENDANT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario