Lavoie v. Canada
- Citation
- 2001 FCT 565
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 31 May 2001
- Posture
- Application for Permanent Injunction / Decision (reasons for Order)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 31 May 2001
- Posture
- Application for Permanent Injunction / Decision (reasons for Order)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application is dismissed with costs because the Correctional Service granted the requested telephone access, rendering the application moot, and the applicant in any event failed to meet the three-part test for an injunction; the grievance procedure was the appropriate initial remedy.
Court disposition
Application for an injunction dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Application dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Michel Lavoie
Applicant Counsel: Michel LavoieHer Majesty the Queen
Respondent Counsel: Sébastien Gagné03
Procedural history
Posture
Application for Permanent Injunction / Decision (reasons for Order)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether applicant entitled to a permanent injunction to access a conventional telephone under Directive 084
- 02
Whether the application is moot given the Correctional Service's response
- 03
Whether the applicant satisfied the three-part injunction test: serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, balance of convenience
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought a permanent injunction to compel access to a conventional telephone in accordance with Commissioner of Corrections Directive 084.
- Respondent
- Respondent showed the Correctional Service granted the requested access after a written request, rendering the application moot; the applicant failed to satisfy the three-part injunction test and had the grievance procedure available, so injunctive relief was excessive.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Established case law (as applied by the Court)
Interlocutory injunctions require a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favors the applicant.
- 02
Doctrine of mootness as applied in the decision
A proceeding is moot when the relief sought has already been granted, removing the need for judicial intervention.
- 03
Court's reasoning based on correctional practice and affidavit evidence
Administrative remedies or grievance procedures should generally be sought before resorting to interlocutory court relief in the penitentiary context.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application is dismissed with costs because the Correctional Service granted the requested telephone access, rendering the application moot, and the applicant in any event failed to meet the three-part test for an injunction; the grievance procedure was the appropriate initial remedy.
Obiter and limits
- If the Correctional Service had refused, the applicant could have sought to change that decision, ordinarily first through the grievance procedure.
- Proceeding by way of an injunction was excessive in the circumstances given the existence of an available administrative remedy and the favourable response from the Service.
Court disposition
Application for an injunction dismissed with costs.
- Application dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 31 May 2001
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.
Federal Court
Judgment· 31 May 2001
Lavoie v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-05-31 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 565 File numbers T-2048-00 Decision Content Date: 20010531 Docket: T-2048-00 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 565 BETWEEN:
MICHEL LAVOIE Applicant - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BLAISJ. [1] This is an application by the applicant for a permanent injunction allowing him to have access to a conventional telephone in accordance with the Commissioner of Corrections' Directive 084. [2] I have carefully reviewed the applicant's application record as well as the respondent's application record and the reply record. [3] It appears that this application is moot because the Correctional Service has responded favourably to the applicant's request to have access to a telephone. [4] In that regard, I reviewed the affidavit of Robert Rousseau dated March 28, 2001, and the exhibits to that affidavit. [5] It appears from the affidavit that the applicant proceeded in the usual manner by making a written request on March 15, 2001, to which he received a favourable response on March 27, 2001, as shown in Exhibit P-1 to the affidavit of Mr. Rousseau. [6] If the response dated March 27, 2001, had been negative, I would understand that the applicant could have brought proceedings to have the decision changed, even though that remedy would first have had to be sought within the usual grievance procedure in the penitentiaries. [7] In the case before us, the applicant chose to proceed by way of an application for an injunction, which seems excessive to me in the circumstances. [8] According to established case law in similar matters, in order to
succeed in a proceeding of this nature, the applicant should have met three tests: that he has a serious question to be tried, that he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted, and that he establishes that the balance of convenience is in his favour. [9] It is clear, on the face of the record, that the applicant does not meet any of those tests. [10] The application for an injunction is therefore dismissed with costs. Pierre Blais Judge OTTAWA, ONTARIO May 31, 2001 Certified true translation Sophie Debbané, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD COURT FILE NO.: T-2048-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHEL LAVOIE - and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
WRITTEN MOTION REVIEWED WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF BLAIS J. DATED: May 31, 2001 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Michel Lavoie ON HIS OWN BEHALF Sébastien Gagné FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
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.