PENITENTIARIES |
Grenier v. Canada
T-954-01
2004 FC 132, Morneau P.
28/1/04
32 pp.
Simplified action in tort by plaintiff against defendant following two incidents on May 29, 1998 and May 12, 1999, respectively, while plaintiff inmate at maximum security Donnacona Institution--With respect to incident on May 12, 1999, Court viewed videotape of officers' entry into plaintiff's cell as well as words and actions of both parties--Plaintiff maintained did not understand why officers came to plaintiff's cell to withdraw plaintiff's radio privilege--Plaintiff acknowledged being annoying with radio and being warned to turn down volume--Plaintiff claims correctional officers jumped and overpowered plaintiff using excessive force and unjustifiably spraying pepper spray while plaintiff not resisting--Institution head noted officers not helmeted or armed in unusual or extraordinary fashion--With respect to can of pepper spray, institution head indicated normal practice for officers to have such cans on them at all times--With respect to viewing video, officers went to plaintiff's cell justifiably--Officer addressed plaintiff respectfully, using unassertive tone, attitude and language, encouraging cooperation--Once officers in cell, asked plaintiff to move to back of cell--Rather than stand back, plaintiff took steps toward officers stating they would not seize radio--From that moment, plaintiff began to put himself in difficult position because of lack of cooperation--Then officers acted reasonably in circumstances and defendant via servants not negligent towards plaintiff in relation to any aspect of incident of May 12, 1999--With respect to incident of May 29, 1998, when plaintiff left cell to go to class, Officer Lafontaine advised plaintiff could not go around wearing slippers and would have to return to cell to change shoes--Plaintiff refused to comply and continued on way--Another officer then told plaintiff to turn back in direction of cell, which plaintiff did-- Approaching cell, plaintiff passed Officer Lafontaine and plaintiff made move that two parties see under very different light--Plaintiff claims threw down papers in hand as simple gesture of frustration and exasperation, since thought had missed training class all on account of some slippers--Officer, however, perceived gesture as attempt by plaintiff to hit her-- Then, Institution head decided to place plaintiff in administrative segregation for 14 days--Respondent must justify this confinement in administrative segregation-- Confinement in administrative segregation cannot be effected in arbitrary manner and, to this end, governed by Corrections and Conditional Release Act, ss. 31-37--Act, s. 31(2) provides inmate in administrative segregation must be returned to general inmate population at earliest appropriate time--Essentially because plaintiff maintained his version of events that kept in administrative segregation--Plaintiff's position does not in any way justify keeping plaintiff in administrative segregation--Defendant did not discharge burden of persuading Court that administrative segregation warranted--Plaintiff arbitrarily imprisoned and therefore entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages--As for compensatory damages, because of problems mentioned by plaintiff in affidavit resulting from segregation period, reasonable to increase this amount to $3,000--Brandon v. Canada (Correctional Service) (1996), 131 D.L.R. (4th) 761 (F.C.T.D.) basis for determining amount of exemplary damages to award--Must assess whether omission (not checking with officers involved in incident to see whether plaintiff acted in presence of other inmates) by unit manager constitutes fault giving rise to liability--Evidence does not show unit manager acted toward plaintiff with malice or with improper purpose in proceedings surrounding laying of charge under Act, s. 40(m)--In case at bar, cannot find fault in facts surrounding laying of charge--Plaintiff's action allowed in part, defendant ordered to pay plaintiff amount of $3,000 in compensatory damages and amount of $2,000 in exemplary damages--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 31, 32, 33 (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 42, s. 12), 34, 35, 36, 37, 40(m).