Ward v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2023 NSSC 102

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Ward v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2023 NSSC 102 Date: 20230323 Docket: SP-521644 Registry: Pictou Between: Brandon Ward v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia DECISION ON HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION Judge: The Honourable Justice Joshua Arnold Heard: March 13, 2023, in Pictou, Nova Scotia Counsel: Brandon Ward, self-represented Adam Norton, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia Overview [ 1 ] Brandon Ward has applied for habeas corpus . He is housed at the Northeast Nova Scotia Correctional Facility in the Bravo 3 Range. For Mr.

Ward that means that he is confined to his cell for 22 hours per day, and is only allowed out of his cell for two hours per day, with two other inmates. Inmates in general population are allowed out of their cell for 12 hours per day. Aside from the 22 hour per day lockdown, Mr. Ward has the same liberties as inmates in general population. Facts [ 2 ] On March 6, 2023, Hoskins J. heard a motion for directions in relation to a request for habeas corpus made by Brandon Ward. Mr. Norton, for the Crown, conceded that due to the deprivation of Mr.

Ward’s liberty (being housed in close confinement for 22 hours per day and only being allowed out of his cell for two hours per day on a rotational basis), the matter should be set down for a full hearing. Justice Hoskins agreed and scheduled the full hearing for March 13, 2023. [ 3 ] On March 13, 2023, I heard the matter virtually. Mr. Ward was self-represented and Mr. Norton represented the Crown. The Crown confirmed that it bears the onus of proof in this case. [ 4 ] The Crown called one witness on the application, that being Assistant Deputy Superintendent John Hawkins.

ADS Hawkins had filed an affidavit in advance of the hearing detailing Mr. Ward’s custodial history and current circumstances. In relation to Mr. Ward’s custodial circumstances, ADS Hawkins’ evidence shows that: • October 1, 2022: Mr. Ward was admitted to the NNSCF; • He is currently remanded; • He was initially placed in the Bravo 2 unit; • The Bravo-2 unit allows inmates to be out of their cells for 12 hours per day and has an airing court, living unit televisions and

access to other privileges such as gaming consoles, tablets, and DVD players; • January 12, 2023: He assaulted another inmate by punching, kneeing and stomping on him. He was placed in segregation as a result for seven (7) days; • February 17, 2023: He was seen on CCTV damaging a television with a broom. He was placed in segregation for two (2) days; • February 18, 2023: He assaulted another inmate with a weapon (a sock with a bar of soap in the end of it). He received eight (8) days in segregation as a result; • On February 24, 2023, Mr.

Ward completed his sanctions from the various infractions noted above; • Due to continuing concerns regarding Mr. Ward’s risk to property and other inmates upon his release from punitive close confinement he was moved to the Bravo 3 unit; • The Bravo 3 unit has prisoners locked in their cells for 22 hours per day and allows prisoners out of their cells for two (2) hours per day; • His conditions continue with two (2) hours of rotation with two (2) other inmates; • Opportunities for showers and recreation continue to be offered daily to Mr.

Ward, although due to staffing issues the recreational options are sometimes very limited; • Canteen services are in effect, and Mr. Ward will receive canteen once per week on Wednesday afternoons should he place a canteen order. It should be noted that all inmates at NNSCF have access to canteen services once per week unless their canteen privileges have been suspended; • Regular facility meals continue to be served to Mr. Ward consistent with the facility menu and offender meal period times; • Mr.

Ward has access to a newspaper each day Monday to Saturday for his enjoyment and to assist in maintaining awareness of the community at large; • In March 2023, a social worker offered Mr. Ward programs he could complete which included “Life Lessons” and “Options to Anger”; • Mr.

Ward is scheduled to have his condition on rotation reviewed weekly; • He had been on Bravo 3 for 20 days as of the date of the hearing without incident. [ 5 ] During ADS Hawkins’ viva voce testimony it became clear that NNSCF had not started the “Life Lessons” or “Options to Anger” programs as of the date of the hearing, no date was set for those programs to commence, and once they actually start it could take up to eight weeks to complete them, depending on staffing availability. There was no plan in place to increase Mr.

Ward’s time out of his cell beyond the two hours per day. [ 6 ] I asked ADS Hawkins questions regarding the opportunities for Mr. Ward to achieve more time out of close confinement. He indicated that theoretically this could occur but did not offer any specific options or concrete plans in this regard for Mr. Ward. We took a break during the hearing and the Crown then advised that the plan was for them to set up the “Options to Anger” for Mr. Ward. They were going to attempt to facilitate that over the next couple of days, to meet and have him enter the program.

The Crown anticipated that it would then likely take the position that, if Mr. Ward was of good behaviour as of March 17, then they would either attempt to place him in another facility (if there were still concerns for institutional safety) or they would attempt to place him within the facility in a unit with less close confinement (if there were not any ongoing concerns for institutional safety). Those were their options for resolving the matter. ADS Hawkins stated that he planned to go back and meet with the case management team, develop a plan for someone to start seeing Mr.

Ward that week, with a goal to assess the situation on March 16 and, ideally, he would either have more time out of close confinement by March 17 or be transferred to another institution with a unit that would provide for less restrictions on his liberty. [ 7 ] The Crown called no further evidence. Mr. Ward elected not to call evidence. The matter was adjourned to March 17 to determine whether ADS Hawkins could create as plan to allow Mr. Ward to increase the number of hours per day out of his cell. Analysis [ 8 ] Being placed in Bravo 3, Mr.

Ward is subjected to a more significant restriction of his liberty than prisoners who are housed in general population. In May v. Ferndale , 2005 SCC 82 , Lebel and Fish JJ. said for the majority at para. 76: “The decision to transfer an inmate to a more restrictive institutional setting constitutes a deprivation of his or her residual liberty.” They also recognized the “the importance of affording prisoners a meaningful and significant access to justice in order to protect their liberty rights, a Charter value.” (para. 72). The habeas corpus process is a mechanism for this. [ 9 ] The Crown says that Mr.

Ward’s placement on Bravo 3 on a rotational lockdown, which leaves him in his cell for 22 hours per day, is due to his institutional history. In its written submissions, the Crown said: The decision to place Mr. Ward on Bravo-3 was not made to punish him . To the contrary, the decision was made to ensure the safety and security of the correctional facility given Mr. Ward’s behaviour . By limiting Mr. Ward’s time out of cells and the number of inmates he has interaction with, the prison administration at NNSCF can mitigate the risk of Mr.

Ward engaging in the kind of aggressive, erratic, and detrimental behavior he has recently demonstrated. [Emphasis added] [ 10 ] Mr. Ward is locked down in Bravo 3 for 22 hours per day, whereas inmates in general population are locked down 12 hours

per day. While the Crown says that Mr. Ward’s placement in Bravo 3 is “not to punish him”, but instead is being done “to ensure the safety and security of the correctional facility given Mr. Ward’s behaviour”, in my opinion, in this case, this is a distinction without a difference. Mr. Ward is in close confinement for 22 hours per day with no end in sight, whereas general population inmates are out of their cells for 12 hours per day. [ 11 ] In its written submissions, the Crown goes on to justify Mr.

Ward’s placement on Bravo 3 by incorrectly claiming that there was a mechanism in place to allow him to achieve a relaxation of the 22 hour per day lockdown. The Crown says: Moreover, it is not a restriction without a path forward. Mr. Ward has been offered two courses that are intended to assist him in refraining from this sort of behaviour in the future. While there are no guarantees of what the future holds, it is clear that NNSCF staff intend to reevaluate the Bravo-3 placement should Mr.

Ward complete those courses. [ 12 ] However, as noted above, during the testimony of ADS Hawkins it became apparent that in reality Mr. Ward was placed in lockdown on Bravo 3 without any real path forward. In its brief, the Crown relies on R. v.

Pratt, 2018 NSSC 243 , on several occasions, for example: Issues around habeas corpus and the use of lockdowns have already been widely assessed by this court in previous decisions such as Pratt v Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , Coaker ( supra ), and Cox v Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2020 NSSC 253 . … With respect to the use of rotational “lockdowns”, the Court in Pratt ( supra ) found that the use of lockdowns for safety and security purposes can be lawful and reasonable and that a judge’s “role is not to determine what decision [he/she] would have made in the circumstances.

In making the decision, the administration must take into account many factors, including most prominently the safety and security of persons, both of the inmates and the staff.” [ 13 ] In R. v. Coaker , 2020 NSSC 252 , Campbell J. dealt with a rotational lockdown situation. Justice Campbell stated: [4] Mr. Coaker has provided evidence about the way that his residual liberties have been restricted by his placement in the North 4 Unit. The Attorney General concedes that Mr. Coaker’s liberties have been restricted because his day room privileges have been reduced from 12 hours a day to 2 to 4 hours per day.

That is a more restrictive condition of confinement than that of the general population of the facility. [5] Concerns have been raised by inmates with respect to the North 4 Unit which was created in July 2020. It is a form of placement that falls short of the institutional definition of “confinement” and is not considered to be close confinement and subjected to the rules that apply to segregation. It was created this summer after the only general population unit in the facility was split into two separate units, with two separate day rooms.

That was because of the increase in the number of inmates in the general population. [6] There were several serious inmate and staff assaults after that. The management of the facility decided that one of those units would become a separate “step down” unit for inmates who showed continued and consistent behavioural issues. Inmates would be placed in that unit after having been unsuccessfully placed with other inmates. Inmates would remain in that unit until their behaviour improved.

That unit is known now as the North Intensive Direct Supervision Unit, or North 4. [7] The purpose of North 4 suggests that it is a disciplinary placement. Inmates do not want to go to North 4 and once there want to get out as soon as they can. It is not close confinement because inmates are permitted a minimum of two hours outside of their cells and have the company of at least one peer during that time. They do not suffer the loss of any other privileges as would be the case in close confinement.

For example, they are permitted to play with PlayStation 4 and watch television while outside of their cells and in the dayroom. They are permitted 30-45 minutes outside each day. They are provided with toiletries and the amenities policy that applies to other inmates applies to them. They have the same library privileges as other inmates though library privileges have been generally restricted in response to Covid-19 limitations. They are permitted telephone privileges and video visits the same as other inmates in the facility.

They are entitled to access programs available to other inmates, subject once again to the strictures imposed by the institution in response to Covid-19. [8] An inmate placed in North 4 experiences incarceration the same as any other inmate except for the period in which he can be outside of his cell. Other inmates in the facility are locked down for 90 minutes during lunch, 90 minutes during dinner and overnight from 10pm until 7am. Otherwise they can congregate in the day room. Inmates on North 4 are on a rotational lockdown which means that they are locked in their cells except for 2 hours each day.

So, inmates have a good reason to want to get out of North 4. [9] An inmate is sent to the close confinement unit for a disciplinary infraction. That is for a definite length of time and relates to a specific incident. Once the inmate has served his time in close confinement, he would ordinarily be released into the general population of the facility. It is a blunt disciplinary tool which has been shown to have serious implications for those upon whom it is imposed. Management of the facility must have a way to impose a form of discipline that allows for a closer form of supervision for some inmates.

The denial of privileges may help in managing the behaviour of some inmates. Some require a form of discipline that can direct them toward modifying their behaviour while avoiding segregation. [10] Inmates are placed in North 4 only if they meet the listed criteria for placement. The inmate must have scored high on an Institutional Security Assessment. That assessment is based on factors that include the number of sentences the person has served, institutional behaviour over the past 5 years, parole violations and the number of Criminal Code violations.

An inmate may score very high (poorly) on the assessment and still not meet the criteria for placement in North 4. The inmate must have multiple serious disciplinary reports adjudicated recently. The inmate must be known to have participated in violent behaviour or serious threats to staff or have been found with drugs or weapons impacting the safety and security of the institution, staff or inmates. The inmate must be one whom the institution has information or reason to believe poses a serious risk to the safety and security of the institution. [11 ] Inmates are not placed on North 4 indefinitely.

Placements are reviewed daily by the Institutional Review Board. That board is

made up of several managers who regularly consider changes in circumstances that would justify changes in placements. Inmates are entitled to appeal decisions of the Institutional Review Board to the Superintendent and to the Executive Director of Correctional Services. The appeal process is the same as the appeal process that applies to decisions regarding close confinement. [12] Protective Custody is not an appropriate placement for inmates who meet the criteria for placement in North 4. It may pose risks for them and may pose risks for inmates in protective custody.

In the past inmates have been transferred to other institutions as a way of managing behaviour without resort to the imposition of a term of close confinement. It also was not time limited in its effect. Covid-19 has made that option much less workable. [Emphasis added] [ 14 ] In that case, Mr. Coaker was given the opportunity to achieve increased time out of close confinement. Campbell J. explained: [18] When he got back to the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility, he was placed in North 4. His Institutional Risk Assessment was medium bordering on high.

It was however within the range that according to the criteria would make him eligible for placement in North 4. On September 3, 2020 he was given a “Letter of Expectation” signed by Stephen Pothier, Assistant Deputy Superintendent CNSCF. That letter told Mr. Coaker that he had been placed on confinement for an incident that took place on August 14, 2020. He was told that the North 4 unit is considered an intensive direct supervision unit aimed at helping inmates that exhibit a pattern of behaviour that is unacceptable and potentially harmful to themselves and others.

He was told that his placement in the unit would be discussed weekly at the unit review board so managers could assess his behaviour for future placement in regular units. The placement was noted as being for a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 60 days. His 30 day review was scheduled for September 12. Deputy Superintendent Verge of the CNSCF testified that no inmate had yet exceeded 30 days in the unit and based on Mr. Coaker’s behaviour so far, his expectation would be that he would be leaving North 4 at the completion of the 30 day period. As of today, September 17, 2020 Mr.

Coaker is no longer in North 4 . … [21] In this case placement in North 4 is a deprivation of liberty. It is not a deprivation of liberty that equates to placement in a close confinement unit. An inmate retains the privileges of other inmates with the significant exception, of restricted time out of the cell and in the day room. That placement is made by managers based on criteria that are set out and made known. Those criteria are intelligible and internally consistent with the other rules governing the administration of the facility.

An inmate’s placement is reviewed by the Institutional Review Board and is subject to the same rights of appeal as close confinement. The managers who make the decision regarding placement have expertise in assessing and mitigating risk in the context of the operation of a correctional facility. The level of deference to the decision in question here must take those considerations into account. [22] Mr. Coaker’s placement on North 4 is not unreasonable, especially having regard to the nature of the confinement and the extent of the deprivation of residual liberty.

He has shown a pattern of behaviour that justifies the imposition of disciplinary measures beyond the withdrawal of privileges. He is a general population inmate and cannot be placed in a protective custody unit because of safety concerns for the inmates in that unit. The amount of time that a person can be placed in segregation is properly limited. The North 4 Intensive Direct Supervision Unit is a form of control that is far less restrictive. It allows the facility to attempt to exercise control over Mr.

Coaker without subjecting him to segregation and while affording him procedural rights of appeal. [23] The procedure applied is fair. Inmates who are placed in North 4 meet with the managers of the unit upon their arrival. They are given a briefing on behavioural expectations and guidelines for transitioning to another unit. There is a weekly evaluation of each inmate and an assessment of their progress is made. An inmate must be free of level 3 disciplinary reports in order to transition back. The institutional review board approves when an inmate can be moved back to a regular supervision unit.

If there is no consensus on whether the inmate can be reintegrated the superintendent of the facility is called upon to decide on placement. [Emphasis added] [ 15 ] Similarly, in R. v. Wallace, 2021 NSSC 101 , Norton J. dealt with an offender placed on a rotational range. Justice Norton explained: [13] In addition to the direct detrimental behaviours for which formal disciplinary sanctions were received, Mr. Wallace was observed by Correctional Services exhibiting indirect negative and detrimental behaviour on this unit on numerous occasions. [14] On February 22, 2021, it was decided by management to place Mr.

Wallace and two other inmates on a two hour out daily rotation (1130 hrs to 1330 hrs) due to their behaviour. Mr. Wallace was out of his cell with the two other inmates while the rest of the living unit is secured. Management meet each Monday to assess the progress of the inmates on the A2 living unit and their behaviour over the previous week . Depending on that assessment, an inmate may be placed on or removed from a rotation . [15] While on the rotation, Mr. Wallace had two hours each day to shower and have recreation out of his cell.

He has access to the Canteen once per week the same as all other inmates unless their Canteen privileges have been suspended. Regular facility meals are delivered to Mr. Wallace in his cell. He has access to the daily newspaper and one video visit per week with family subject to that privilege being suspended for a disciplinary report. … [17] Since the Motion for Directions, Mr. Wallace’s behavioural progress has been reviewed on three occasions. On March 1, 2021 it was determined that Mr. Wallace’s behaviour had not improved and the two hour out of cells rotation was continued.

On March 8, 2021, due to improvements in his behaviour, Mr. Wallace’s rotation was amended to increase the time out of cells to four hours per day from 1130 hrs to 1530 hrs daily. On March 15, 2021, due to further improvement in behaviour, the time out of cells has been increased

to six hours (1130 hrs to 1730 hrs) daily . [Emphasis added] [ 16 ] Mr. Wallace was also afforded the opportunity to achieve more time out of the 22 hour per day close confinement. As found by Norton J.: [33] I have previously reviewed the evidence as I accepted it from the affidavit and the viva voce evidence. I find that, substantively and procedurally, the decision to place Mr. Wallace on a two hour out rotation (presently six hours out) was lawful and reasonable. Mr. Wallace had demonstrated ongoing behaviour that was detrimental to the safety of staff and other inmates.

The rotation was successful in achieving its purpose. During the month long period that the rotation was in place Mr. Wallace received no disciplinary levels. As a result of his improved behaviour, his time out of cells was increased from two hours to four hours and then a week later to six hours. There had been no behaviour issues the week before the hearing and it was anticipated that his time out of cells would increase by another two hours . … [39] I conclude that Mr.

Wallace was lawfully detained within the NNSCF on the Alpha 2 unit with a two hour out rotation and continues to be lawfully detained on a six hour out rotation as of the date of the hearing. [Emphasis added] [ 17 ] Unlike Mr. Coaker and Mr. Wallace, and contrary to the Crown’s written submissions noted above, when Mr. Ward made his habeas corpus application, there was nothing concrete that would allow him to achieve more than two hours out of his cell per day, a more significant restriction on his liberty imposed by his placement in Bravo 3.

He was locked down in his cell for 22 hours per day, and while there was some theoretical discussion about vague circumstances that might allow him out of his cell for more than two hours sometime in the future, there were no concrete plans in place to allow for that. There was no light at the end of the tunnel. Inmates should not be placed in hopeless situations, and certainly not indefinitely being subject to more strict restrictions on their liberty than the general population inmates, despite their problematic behaviour or institutional staffing issues. [ 18 ] This is not a new concept. In R. v.

Downey , 2020 NSSC 213 , Coady J. stated: [7] Segregation in penal institutions has been the subject of much critical debate in the legal community and among the public. In Gogan v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2015 NSSC 360 , Justice Moir commented at para. 20: 20 To lock a man alone in a cell for twenty-three hours a day is not merely to deprive him of the common room.

It is to deprive him of social interaction, of the simplest personal amusements such as cards or television, of the most rudimentary activities that keep us sane. “[S]olitary confinement (or segregation) for a prolonged period of time can have damaging psychological effects on an inmate…”: Boone v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) , 2014 ONCA 515 at para. 21 . [8] Justice Duncan in R. v.

Melvin et al , 2016 NSSC 130 echoed Justice Moir’s comments at para. 19: 19 The basis of Judge Derrick’s decision was, first, that she took judicial notice that segregation of a prisoner, especially for a lengthy period of time, does impact negatively on a prisoner’s mental health. She cited Justice Moir in Gogan v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2015 NSSC 360 (N.S.S.C.), at paragraph 20 , together with other authorities in support of this proposition. [9] It is beyond dispute that segregation produces nothing positive and it exists as a tool to manage a prison population.

The impact of segregation is especially profound for inmates with mental health and/or addiction issues. While in close confinement privileges may be restricted or denied such as recreation, exercise, visits, correspondence and telephone access. It is hard to imagine how difficult and damaging it must be to sit in a cell 23 hours a day without human contact or without any activity to pass the hours.

This condition is exacerbated when the inmate is unsure when such segregation is to end, which is the situation for these Applicants. [10] It is too easy to suggest that the Applicants have created this situation and, as such, have no standing to complain. In other words, they are responsible for their own misfortune. This is a misguided theory and this Court must guarantee that penal institutions do not adopt such an attitude. … [ 19 ] I have concluded that the ongoing placement of Mr. Downey and Mr. Gray in the HCU is not a reasonable outcome. If it were a temporary arrangement, I would find it reasonable.

However, to leave them in segregation indefinitely is not acceptable. I make this decision on the evidence recognizing the difficulty faced by the institution and affording it considerable deference. [ 20 ] I recognize that the institution has made some efforts to mitigate the indefinite placement in the HCU. However, these steps are minimal and do little to address the harshness of segregation. I also recognize that there will be ongoing institutional reviews of these placements but there is no evidence before me that such a process will result in an alternative placement for the Applicants. [ 21 ] Leaving Mr.

Downey and Mr. Gray in the HCU indefinitely offends the principles of habeas corpus and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The institution must find a resolution. Consequently, I order that if a solution is not found within 14 days of this decision, Mr. Downey and Mr. Gray are to be brought before this Court for a Criminal Code review of their detention. [19] Clearly, Mr. Ward acted in a manner that created danger for other inmates, correctional staff and institutional property. But that does not end the discussion.

Merely categorizing a unit like Bravo 3 as existing for the “safety and security of the correctional facility”, as opposed to “for punishment”, does not alleviate the institution’s responsibility to comply with decisions like May v. Ferndale, limiting the use of close confinement. [20] The Supreme Court of Canada has set limits on the use of close confinement. The onus is not on the inmate to earn their way

out of close confinement. An inmate cannot be parked in segregation, solitary or have significant close confinement restrictions on their liberty in comparison with inmates in general population indefinitely. Once I raised the issue of the hopelessness of Mr. Ward’s situation, both the Crown and ADS Hawkins recognized the problem and immediately instituted a new plan for Mr. Ward. Complaint Process [21] The Crown accurately notes that Mr. Ward has not made any effort to comply with the internal complaint process at NNCF.

The Crown stated in its written materials: Finally, the evidence of Assistant Deputy Superintendent Hawkins shows that, to date, Mr. Ward has not filed any formal complaints to challenge the decision to place him on Bravo-3. In accordance with the established principles of administrative law and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in May v Ferndale supra, the AGNS submits that Mr. Ward must exhaust the process the legislature has established for challenging such administrative decisions before seeking a remedy from the court by way of habeas corpus . The AGNS submits that

section 24 of the Correctional Services Act in conjunction with sections 25 through 30 of the Regulations, represents a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for review and appeal of administrative decisions . This complaint and appeal process is available to inmates who are aggrieved for ANY reason. [Emphasis added] [ 22 ] While the Crown raised this issue in its written materials, it was not litigated fully before me. I therefore decline to rule on whether Mr.

Ward had access to a process that would allow for a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for review and appeal of administrative decisions. That being said, for the reasons that follow I regard this issue as redundant. [ 23 ] On March 6, 2023, when the motion for directions was held, the Crown did not raise a jurisdictional issue regarding Mr. Ward’s failure to rely on the internal complaint process. In its written materials, and during the full hearing on March 13, the evidence revealed that there was in fact no process in place for Mr. Ward to achieve more time out of his cell while housed in Bravo 3.

The evidence also confirmed that Mr. Ward did not avail himself of the internal complaint process prior to filing his habeas corpus motion. [ 24 ] In this specific situation, considering the evidence of ADS Hawkins, proceeding through the internal complaint process would have only delayed achieving any sort of remedy for Mr. Ward, who is deserving of clarity in relation to being indefinitely subject to 22 hour per day segregation.

In my opinion, in this unique set of factual circumstances, even if there was a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for review and appeal of administrative decisions, sending the matter back to proceed through the internal complaint process, being then told that there was no way to get out of close confinement (because at that time there was not), would have been futile. Further, it could have led to confusion on Mr. Ward’s part as to the appropriate path forward in relation to re-filing his motion for habeas corpus, and would have improperly protracted his time in segregation.

Continuation on March 17, 2023 [ 25 ] As noted above, Mr. Ward’s habeas corpus hearing was held on March 13, 2023. The matter was adjourned to March 17, 2023, to confirm that the plan regarding Mr. Ward was being implemented. On March 17, 2023, the Crown forwarded a Notice of Discontinuance signed by Mr. Ward on March 16, 2023. At the hearing on March 17, the following occurred: Mr. Norton advised that as of March 16, Mr. Ward was allowed out of his cell, twice-daily, for a total of four-to four-and-a-half hours per day. Additionally, ADS Hawkins made arrangements to have Mr.

Ward transferred to the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility on Friday, March 17, at 2:30 p.m. [ 26 ] Mr. Ward advised the court that, based on a conversation with jail staff on March 16, he expected to soon be out of his cell for six hours per day. He said that he was told that the inmates on Bravo 3 would have time out of their cells on an equally split rotation between the inmates during the 12 hour day. Mr. Norton confirmed that logistically this explanation made sense to him.

Based on the new zones that the institution had set up in Bravo 3, each of the two groups of inmates would have six hours out of their cell per day, On this basis, Mr. Ward did not want to be transferred to the CNSCF, did not want the habeas corpus application to proceed any further and signed a discontinuance form. Mr. Ward reiterated that he signed the discontinuance form with the understanding that the institution would rotate the day room back-and-forth for six hours each (half the day), and that he would get a total of six hours out of his cell. Conclusion [ 27 ] The habeas corpus application filed by Mr.

Ward is discontinued, based on the understanding that currently Mr. Ward is allowed out of his cell for four-to-four-and-a-half hours per day, and this will soon be increased to six hours per day. Arnold, J.