Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Deschênes v. Canada (Attorney General)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies so no serious issue was established, he did not demonstrate irreparable harm on the record, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent given CSC’s statutory safety mandate and COVID-19 related risks.

Court disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • The motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction is dismissed.

02

Material facts

Parties

CHRISTIAN DESCHÊNES

Applicant Counsel: Sylvie Bordelais

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent Counsel: Véronique Forest

Amounts and remedies

  • Applicant Age: 64
  • Sentence Years: 45.333

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Motion for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunction to Implement Parole Board UTA / Decision on Motion (dismissed)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought an order compelling CSC to implement a Parole Board granted UTA so he can visit and support his spouse with terminal cancer and asserted irreparable harm from being prevented from doing so.
Respondent
Respondent defended suspension of the UTA on public health and safety grounds during the COVID-19 pandemic, relied on Commissioner’s Directive 710-3 and administrative review decisions, and argued the applicant failed to exhaust internal grievance remedies and did not establish irreparable harm.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    RJR‑Macdonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 SCC 117

    Test for interlocutory injunction requires serious issue, irreparable harm and balance of convenience

  2. 02

    Teale v Canada (Attorney General), [2000] FCJ No 1666; Mackinnon v Bowden Institution Head, 2016 FCA 14

    Failure to exhaust internal remedies precludes court from establishing a serious issue

  3. 03

    Commissioner’s Directive 710-3 (as cited in judgment)

    Commissioner’s Directive 710-3 sets eligibility criteria for unescorted temporary absences which must be considered by CSC decision makers

  4. 04

    RJR‑Macdonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 SCC 117 (paras 69, 71)

    Institutional mandate to ensure safety of public, inmates and staff can justify restrictions during pandemic

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies so no serious issue was established, he did not demonstrate irreparable harm on the record, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent given CSC’s statutory safety mandate and COVID-19 related risks.

Obiter and limits

  • Court noted applicant’s statement that time is short for his spouse and urged that any grievance be considered as soon as reasonably possible
  • Court observed the competing human consequences but held that, on balance and given the case law, the injunction could not be granted

Court disposition

Motion dismissed

  • The motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction is dismissed.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 18 December 2020

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 18 December 2020

2020 FC 1169

Deschênes v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-12-18 Neutral citation 2020 FC 1169 File numbers T-1483-20 Decision Content Date: 20201218 Docket: T-1483-20 Citation: 2020 FC 1169 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, December 18, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: CHRISTIAN DESCHÊNES Applicant and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

ORDER AND REASONS [1] This is a motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction to compel the Correctional Service of Canada [CSC] to allow the applicant to visit his spouse who has cancer, as part of an unescorted temporary absence [UTA] granted on October 15, 2020, by the Parole Board of Canada [PBC]. [2] The applicant, who is 64 years old, is an inmate of the Federal Training Centre [FTC], a minimum security institution, serving a cumulative sentence of forty-five years and four months for various crimes, including repeat offences. He alleges that his spouse of about 15 years has cancer with a prognosis of one year; as a result of this prognosis, the applicant expressed the desire to support his spouse and to be with her during the last months of her life. [3] In October 2020, the PBC denied the application for parole and day parole, but authorized a UTA for personal development, which is suspended until the CSC can implement it, given the current COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, the UTA was temporarily suspended by the director of the FTC due to the pandemic. Furthermore, upon review of this position by the Manager of Assessment and Interventions, the Director and the Deputy Commissioner, the applicant did not meet the criteria of Commissioner’s Directive 710-3. No grievance was filed against the decision of the Director or of the Deputy Commissioner. [4] This application is for

implementation of the PBC’s decision. To do so, the Court must be satisfied that the outcome presents a serious issue, that the applicant risks irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favours the applicant (RJR-Macdonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CSC 117 [RJR-Macdonald]). [5] First, in the absence of failure to exhaust the internal recourses, the Court cannot establish a serious issue (see Teale v Canada (Attorney General) [2000] FCJ No 1666, 104 ACWS (3d) 570, 49 WCB (2d) 447 at para 16; Mackinnon v Bowden Institution Head, 2016 FCA 14 at para 6). The facts are such that the grievance decision maker should consider the seriousness of the inmate’s spouse’s condition, as well as the safety and health of the FTC and its community. [6] As for irreparable harm, the applicant asserts that he and his wife be harmed if he cannot support her in these times of instability. However, this was not supported in the written submissions. [7] Finally, the balance of convenience favours the respondent with a legislated mandate to ensure the safety of the public, inmates and penitentiaries (RJR-Macdonald at paras 69, 71). It is in the public interest for the respondent to observe the risks associated with COVID-19. With all due respect to the applicant’s testimony that he is in a delicate situation, the evidence on the record demonstrates that the pandemic remains a

danger to the community, inmates and penitentiary staff. Like King Solomon, torn between two testimonies, the Court is faced with two pleadings that are not without heart-wrenching consequences, but, taking into account the case law, the balance cannot be tipped in the applicant’s favour. [8] For these reasons, the motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction is dismissed. ORDER in T-1483-20 THE COURT ORDERS that the motion for a mandatory interlocutory injunction is dismissed.

OBITER The Court notes that, in the applicant’s words, time is short for his spouse and that if a grievance is presented, it should be considered as soon as possible, within reason. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Michael Palles, Reviser

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1483-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: CHRISTIAN DESCHÊNES v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: MATTER HEARD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE IN MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 15, 2020 ORDER AND REASONS: SHORE J. DATED: DECEMBER 18, 2020 APPEARANCES: Sylvie Bordelais

FOR THE APPLICANT Véronique Forest

FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Bordelais, Nguyen, S.N.A. Montréal, Quebec

FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec

FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

RJR‑Macdonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), 1994 SCC 117

Case cited

Teale v Canada (Attorney General), [2000] FCJ No 1666

Case cited

Mackinnon v Bowden Institution Head, 2016 FCA 14

Case cited

Commissioner’s Directive 710-3

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.