Pontbriand v. Canada (Attorney General)

Pontbriand v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-09-15 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 334 File numbers A-441-02 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20030915 Docket: A-441-02 Citation: 2003 FCA 334 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: JEAN-GUY PONTBRIAND Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on September 15, 2003. Judgment rendered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 15, 2003. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20030915 Docket: A-441-02 Citation: 2003 FCA 334 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: JEAN-GUY PONTBRIAND Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 15, 2003) DÉCARY J.A. [1] In view of the provisions of paragraph 40(j) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 ("the Act"), the validity of which is not at issue in the case at bar, we consider like Pinard J. ((2002), 229 F.T.R. 174) that the notice given by the Donnacona Institution warden on June 10, 1997, under the power conferred on him by that paragraph is not excessive. The prohibition in question, from having in his cell any liquid in a receptacle over 1.5 litres in size and having in his possession a liquid not sold in the canteen or provided by the kitchen of the establishment, is no more restrictive than that which, for example, results from the Commissioner's Directives on inmates' personal effects published on August 20, 1999 (No. 090). [2] We consider that the independent chairperson's decision to deny the application for an adjournment made by the appellant so he could question the co-perpetrator of the offence was reasonable in the circumstances. The testimony sought was not relevant in view of the offence alleged against the appellant. We should like to make a point of noting that the "serious injustice" mentioned by Denault J. in item 6 of the principles stated by him in Hendrickson v. Kent Institution (1990), 32 F.T.R. 296 (principles recently approved by Isaac J.A. in Ross v. Canada, 2003 F.C.A. 296), applies to a judge hearing an application for judicial review, not to an independent chairperson conducting an inquiry. [3] The appeal will be dismissed with costs. "Robert Décary" Judge Certified true translation Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Date: 20030915 Docket: A-441-02 Between: JEAN-GUY PONTBRIAND Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD FILE: A-441-02 (APPEAL FROM ORDER BY TRIAL DIVISION ON JULY 5, 2002, IN FILE T-287-99) STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN-GUY PONTBRIAND Appellant and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: September 15, 2003 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (DÉCARY, NADON, PELLETIER JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: DÉCARY J.A. APPEARANCES: Daniel Royer FOR THE APPELLANT Sébastien Gagné FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Labelle, Boudrault, Coté and Associates FOR THE APPELLANT Montréal, Quebec Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario