Nelson v. Canada ( Commissioner of Corrections )
T-1409-95
Campbell J.
7/5/96
12 pp.
Judicial review of Warden's decisions curtailing, suspending applicant's telephone privileges-First decision permitting four social calls per month, legal calls-Reasons for suspension: applicant using telephone to arrange to have drugs brought into institution; contacting two minor females possibly to recruit them to work for him as prostitutes upon his release; parents of girls requesting no further contact-Second decision suspending privileges completely due to continued abuse of privilege by using telephone on pretext of making legal call, and instead contacting person in community to pass coded messages-Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, s. 95(1) providing institutional head may prevent inmate from communicating by telephone if believes on reasonable grounds safety of any person would be jeopardized or intended recipient or parent requesting in writing not receive any more communication from inmate-"Prevention" within regulationmaking power in Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 96(z.7) to provide for "monitoring or intercepting" of communications-Both decisions meeting three requirements of s. 95(1)-Act, s. 95(2) requiring institutional head to promptly inform inmate of reasons for s. 95(1) action and to give inmate opportunity to respond thereto-Warden not answering request for particulars of allegations before application commenced-Actions not meeting standard set out in Act, s. 4(g) of correctional decision "made in a forthright and fair manner"-Sharp, unwarranted practice to unilaterally decide to make order, set conditions, term, offer to receive representations on order if request to do so received within 72 hours and then delay for six weeks in answering request for particulars of why order made-Not hearing representations from applicant because believing would not affect final outcome-Guidelines for appropriate practice in such cases set out-Applications allowed since insufficient particulars provided-As litigation might have been avoided if diligent care taken to respond to request for particulars, failure to do so special reason to award costs as provided by R. 1618-Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, ss. 3, 4, 71, 96-Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, s. 95-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 1618 (as am. by SOR/92-43, s. 19).