Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

PENITENTIARIES

Zanth v. Canada (Attorney General)

T-1839-03

2004 FC 1113, Blais J.

11/8/04

14 pp.

Judicial review of a decision by Chairperson of Donnacona Institution disciplinary court finding applicant guilty of disciplinary offence provided in Corrections and Conditional Release Act (Act), s. 40(h) --Applicant inmate at Donnacona penitentiary when on April 11, 2003, brawl in common room --Applicant, other inmate, Mr. Guindon, exchanged blows for short period of time--At disciplinary hearing applicant raised self-defence--Chairperson of court did not address it--Two fundamental errors of law, one in respect of reasonable doubt, other in respect of defence-- According to Act, s. 43(3), person conducting hearing must be satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt" inmate committed disciplinary offence in question--Expressing reasonable doubt in terms of credibility error of law--Court did not ask whether evidence made beyond reasonable doubt--As for defence raised, reasoning seems to be since applicant delivered blows, could not claim self-defence--Total misconception of meaning of "self-defence"--Self-defence not negating blows dealt or even intention to deliver blows, but rather justification --In R. v. Kerr, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 371, Supreme Court stating "self-defence does not negate mens rea of assault, but rather allows the accused to escape criminal liability on the basis of an acceptable motive"--Self-defence defined in Criminal Code, s. 34(1)--Applicant raised doubt regarding four elements defining self-defence--Claiming attacked from behind, in fact back badly injured--Submitting did not provoke attack; guards spoke about fact Mr. Guindon under surveillance, because feared might provoke incident-- Nothing indicating applicant intended to cause death, grievous bodily injury--Finally, applicant stopped fighting when alarm sounded--Court could not disregard only defence raised by applicant--Application allowed--Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C., 1992, c. 20, ss. 40, 43(3)--Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34(1).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.