Ennis v. Canada (Attorney General)

Ennis v. Canada (Attorney General)

Applying the reasonableness standard, the tribunal's decision to place the applicant on the waiting list with lower priority was reasonable given the interview findings (vague treatment goals, lower motivation) and eligibility dates; there was no evidence of a double standard or bad faith and no material breach of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2003 FCT 461
Parties
Applicant: David Ennis; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Correctional Service Grievance Decision / Reasons for Order Disposition Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Program Access, Prioritization of Inmates, Reasonable Access to Mental Health Care, Standard of Review, Grievance Process
Source Language
english
Corrections Law Administrative Law Prison Law Criminal Law Judicial Review Program Access Prioritization of Inmates Reasonable Access to Mental Health Care +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Ennis

Applicant

The Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Correctional Service Grievance Decision / Reasons for Order Disposition Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal's decision to prioritize other inmates and deny immediate entry into the Intensive Treatment Program for Sex Offenders (ITPSO) was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether CSC breached statutory duties under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide reasonable access to programs and non-essential mental health care
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness (including s.27 entitlement to information) was breached

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the reasonableness standard, the tribunal's decision to place the applicant on the waiting list with lower priority was reasonable given the interview findings (vague treatment goals, lower motivation) and eligibility dates; there was no evidence of a double standard or bad faith and no material breach of statutory duties or procedural fairness that would vitiate the decision; consequently the judicial review application must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Judicial review application dismissed