[2014] 1 F.C.R. D-7
Parole
Appeal from Prothonotary’s order (2013 FC 288) made following trial of simplified action—Action determining that plaintiff entitled to recover from defendant $20,000 in general damages, costs—Plaintiff out on day parole after imprisonment, securing job, working—Plaintiff’s parole revoked after alleged involvement in drug smuggling incident—Plaintiff returned to prison, losing job—However, parole restored given absence of reliable information regarding allegations—Prothonotary finding plaintiff entitled to damages for false imprisonment, for negligence of investigation by Correctional Service Canada officers—Finding that officers overzealous but not recklessly indifferent or wilfully blind—Whether Prothonotary erring in finding that imprisonment not justified; that Canada owing duty of care to plaintiff; in identifying, applying standard of care—Defendant arguing that essential determination to be made whether investigations conducted by parole officers before revoking plaintiff’s day parole falling short of standard required in circumstances therein—Prothonotary making thorough review of number of authorities dealing with existence of duty of care between peace officers, person under investigation—Prothonotary correctly finding that duty of care existing as between parole officers, parolee, defendant in present case—Whether parole officers overzealous in revoking plaintiff’s day parole on conflicting evidence herein—Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 examined—Based on Act, ss. 3, 4, tension existing between duty to public, duty to offender but Act clearly stating that duty to public paramount—Act, s. 135 setting process by which supervision of parole, review of suspension conducted—Act, s. 137(1) giving officer discretion in revoking parole; officer, Parole Board required to review case—All reviews stated therein conducted in present case—Act, Commissioner’s Directive in place at time incident occurring, providing for procedures to be followed in revoking parole—All stated procedures followed here—Plaintiff required to establish that parole officer’s actions falling below expected level of care—In present case, parole officers following required procedure; Review Board reviewing parole officers’ decision—While Review Board reversing decision, not stating that officers involved failing in exercising proper level of care—Plaintiff not establishing that parole officers’ actions falling below expected standard of care—Therefore, both unlawful imprisonment, negligence actions failing—Appeal allowed, action dismissed.
Hermiz v. Canada (T-828-09, 2013 FC 764, Hughes J., judgment dated July 9, 2013, 25 pp.)