An Application for Judicial Review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board was dismissed. The Court held that the evidence upon which Appeal Division based its decision was sufficient to support its decision.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Questions of jurisdiction – National Parole Board hearings
Cartier v. Canada (Attorney General), (2001) F.C.J. No. 1089, Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, July 4, 2001, Nadon, J.
The Plaintiff (“Cartier”) was serving a 15-year term of imprisonment for manslaughter. The parole board ordered that he be kept in custody and prohibited his release before his sentence legally expired. Cartier made an Application for Judicial Review of the decision made by the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board dismissing the appeal. By his Application for Judicial Review, Cartier asked the court to quash the Appeal Division’s decision and order that he be released forthwith and granted a re-hearing before the parole board. He argued that the National Parole Board Appeal Division failed to determine whether the trial division had infringed a rule of fundamental justice and had made an error of law and mistake in the finding of fact. In refusing to grant Judicial Review, the court noted that there was no indication that the Appeal Division had refused to exercise its jurisdiction. The Appeal Division clearly indicated in its decision that it had considered the Plaintiff’s allegations of an infringement of a rule of natural justice. In determining whether the Appeal Division had made an error of law, the court turned to section 132(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c.20 and noted that the Act provides that the parole board should take any factor that is relevant into consideration in determining the likelihood that an offense will be committed, causing death or serious harm to another person. The Court concluded that the Appeal Division gave adequate consideration to the factors taken into account by the parole board at the time of its decision and did not rely on any irrelevant or inappropriate factors. The Court concluded that the evidence on the record was enough to support the Appeal Division’s decision.
The Appeal for Judicial Review was dismissed.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.