Sampson v. Canada (Attorney General)
The transfer decision was upheld because it was procedurally fair and founded on reliable evidence from the security information officer; the failure to use the correctional services reliability guideline did not invalidate the decision and the transfer was not unreasonable.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 103
- Parties
- Appellant: Roger Sampson; Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 February 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (habeas Corpus Appeal) / On Appeal From Decision Refusing to Grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus (transfer From Minimum to Medium Security)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; decision refusing to grant writ of habeas corpus upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Procedural Fairness, Reliability of Confidential Informant, Prisoner Transfer, Habeas Corpus, Standard of Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Roger Sampson
Appellant
The Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil (habeas Corpus Appeal) / On Appeal From Decision Refusing to Grant a Writ of Habeas Corpus (transfer From Minimum to Medium Security)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the transfer decision was made with procedural fairness
- 2 Whether reliance on confidential information without using the reliability guideline invalidated the decision
- 3 Whether the informant's information was reliable enough to justify transfer
Ratio Decidendi
The transfer decision was upheld because it was procedurally fair and founded on reliable evidence from the security information officer; the failure to use the correctional services reliability guideline did not invalidate the decision and the transfer was not unreasonable.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; decision refusing to grant writ of habeas corpus upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; order of Justice A.D. Sheffield refusing writ of habeas corpus upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sampson v. Canada (Attorney General) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-02-04 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 103 Docket numbers C48389 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Gillese, Eileen E.; MacFarland, Jean Louise Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Sampson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 ONCA 103 DATE: 20100204 DOCKET: C48389 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Weiler, Gillese and MacFarland JJ.A. BETWEEN Roger Sampson Appellant and The Attorney General of Canada Respondent Michael S. Mandelcorn and R. Michael Rode, for the appellant Brian Harvey, for the respondent Heard and released orally: February 1, 2010 On appeal from the decision refusing to grant a writ of habeas of Justice A.D. Sheffield corpus on March 16, 2007. ENDORSEMENT [1] We see no error in Sheffield J.’s decision that the decision to transfer the appellant from a minimum security institution to a medium security institution was done with procedural fairness and based on reliable evidence. [2] There is a difference between the use of confidential information alleging a crime in a criminal proceeding and its use, as in this case, to make an administrative decision to transfer the appellant to a higher security setting. The requirement that the information was reliable was satisfied by the evidence of the security information officer, Officer Burrell. He testified that the informant was reliable and had always been reliable in the past. The fact that the correctional services reliability guideline document was not used is a procedural omission that, in the circumstances, is of no import. Officer Burrell was extensively cross-examined on the reliability of the informant. [3] The appellant did not face an accusation in the abstract. While the exact date of the first report is not pinpointed the time frame is. The nature of the infraction is also clear. While the incident itself was not corroborated, the risk concern that the reported incident pointed to was supported by other information. [4] The decision to transfer was not unreasonable. “K.M. Weiler J.A.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A.”