Date: 20030320
Docket: T-1901-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 332
Ottawa, Ontario, March 20, 2003
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
ARTHUR ROSS
Applicant
and
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada ("the Commissioner") denying the grievance of the applicant at the third and final level of the grievance process prescribed under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c-20 (the "Act") and the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, (the "Regulations"). The grievance arose out of the applicant's designation as a "Multiple Grievor".
[2] The applicant, Arthur Ross is an inmate. He is currently incarcerated in Saskatchewan Penitentiary Max Unit. He was previously incarcerated in Bowden Institution.
[3] On July 14, 1998, the applicant was designated as a "Multiple Grievor", by Marcel Chaisson, the A/Deputy Commissioner, Correctional Services of Canada, Prairie Region. As a Multiple Grievor, he could submit an unlimited number of grievances, but only two routine submissions would be processed per month. If he had "Priority" complaints or grievances, they would be processed immediately.
[4] On April 11, 2001, the applicant was informed by Arthur Ding, A/Warden Saskatchewan Penitentiary Max Unit, that his designation as a Multiple Grievor would remain in effect at this institution.
[5] The applicant made a grievance (V50A00000758) on May 3, 2001. He argued that as he had only submitted one grievance upon his return to Saskatchewan Penitentiary Max Unit, his Multiple Grievor designation should be removed. He also argued that there was no supportive documentation that allowed the Deputy Commissioner to designate him as a Multiple Grievor.
[6] The third level decision, denying the applicant's grievance, was rendered on September 10, 2001 and was received by the applicant on September 24, 2001.
[7] The applicant challenges his designation as a Multiple Grievor. He submits that the Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to create a Multiple Grievor status by law. Subsection 4(g), and sections 90 and 91 of the Act provide for an effective grievance procedure that expeditiously resolves inmates' complaints without negative consequences. According to the applicant, nowhere in the law is the Commissioner given the jurisdiction to create a Multiple Grievor status which could restrict an inmate to only two grievances per month.
[8] The applicant was designated as a Multiple Grievor in 1998. As such, he is
challenging a decision that was rendered in 1998. In this regard, the applicant is outside
the time frame to judicially review the decision. Subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Court
Act, R.S. 1985, c. F-7 provides:
| 18.1 (2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within thirty days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected thereby, or within such further time as a judge of the Trial Division may, either before or after the expiration of those thirty days, fix or allow. |
|
18.1 (2) Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours qui suivent la première communication, par l'office fédéral, de sa décision ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu'un juge de la Section de première instance peut, avant ou après l'expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou accorder. |
|
|
|
|
[9] If the applicant was of the opinion that the Commissioner did not have the statutory authority to create the designation of Multiple Grievor, he should have sought judicial review of the decision in 1998, after he was given the designation. He cannot raise these arguments now, as he is clearly outside the time limit.
[10] As all of the applicant's submissions are based on the argument that the Commissioner does not have the statutory authority to create the designation of Multiple Grievor, this reason alone is sufficient to dismiss the matter.
[11] In any event, I would add that the authority of the Commissioner to create the
designation of Multiple Grievor is found in subsection 4(g), and sections 90 and 91 of the Act. These provisions provide:
| 4. The principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the purpose referred to in section 3 are
g) that correctional decisions be made in a forthright and fair manner, with access by the offender to an effective grievance procedure;
90. There shall be a procedure for fairly and expeditiously resolving offenders' grievances on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the procedure shall operate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(u).
91. Every offender shall have complete access to the offender grievance procedure without negative consequences. |
|
4. Le Service est guidé, dans l'exécution de ce mandat, par les principes qui suivent:
g) ses décisions doivent être claires et équitables, les délinquants ayant accès à des mécanismes efficaces de règlement de griefs;
90. Est établie, conformément aux règlements d'application de I'alinéa 96u), une procédure de règlement juste et expéditif des griefs des délinquants sur des questions relevant du commissaire
91. Tout délinquant doit, sans crainte de représailles, avoir libre accès à la procédure de règlement des griefs. |
|
|
|
|
[12] In order for these objectives to be met and to ensure that all inmates have access to an effective grievance procedure, the authorities must have the ability to designate some inmates as Multiple Grievors. Otherwise, the ability of all inmates to have access to the grievance procedure would be unfairly limited by the numerous grievances submitted by a few inmates.
[13] The designation of Multiple Grievor ensures that the least restrictive method is employed. An inmate can still submit as many grievances as he wishes. The limit is that only two grievances a month will be responded to, unless they are a priority. This ensures that the abuse of the system by certain inmates will not prevent other inmates from having access to the grievance procedure.
[14] In the case at bar, it is clear from the evidence that the applicant uses the grievance procedure in an abusive manner. In his application record, he acknowledges that he has a personal policy of giving one grievance per day while in segregation. Allowing the grievance procedure to be used in this manner would hamper the ability of other inmates to have access to the system.
[15] For all these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1901-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: ARTHUR ROSS
Applicant
and
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
DATE OF HEARING: March 18, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DANIELE TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATED: March 20, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Arthur Ross ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Mr. Chris Bernier FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Saskatchewan Regional Office
10th floor
123-2nd Avenue South
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
S7K 7E6 FOR RESPONDENT