2011 FC, 2011 FC 1233

Date: 20111031 Docket: T-241-10 Citation: 2011 FC 1233 Ottawa, Ontario , October 31, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Martineau BETWEEN: JASON LEWIS Applicant and ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IAN MCCOWAN OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The present application for judicial review pertains to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) third level grievance decision (the impugned decision) rendered on December 18, 2009 in file n° V40A00033184 by Assistant Commissioner Ian McCowan (the respondent Assistant Commissioner), in which he rejected four out of five issues raised by Mr.

Jason Lewis (the applicant) on the grounds that they had not been previously raised at the lower levels of the grievance procedure. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the impugned decision should be set aside.

BACKGROUND [ 3 ] In May 2008, while housed in segregation following an incident that took place in his unit, the applicant filed a request for transfer from Warkworth Institution, a medium security institution in Ontario , to Cowansville Institution in Quebec , in order to alleviate his segregated status at Warkworth. [ 4 ] In June 2008, nine days after submitting his application for transfer, the applicant was eventually cleared and released from segregation after further information was received indicating that he did not participate in the incident. [ 5 ] On September 2, 2008, a Security Reclassification Scale (SRS) was made by Acting Parole Officer (APO) Amanda Benett, increasing the applicant’s Offender Security Level (OSL) to medium ( Security Classification Score increased from 19.5 to 25).

The applicant’s OSL was afterwards increased to maximum on July 6, 2009 when a second SRS was made by Acting Parole Officer Lisa Charles. Although another grievance is filed against the July 6, 2009 SRS in file n° V40A00034604, the applicant continuously alleged

that the second SRS negatively affected – and was negatively affected by – the contested Assessment for Decision (AD). [ 6 ] On October 3, 2008, following up on the applicant’s transfer request, an AD was completed by APO Amanda Benett and Manager of Assessment and Interventions (MAI) Cal MacAusland. The AD contained two recommendations for decisions to be made: (1) a recommendation to refuse the applicant’s institutional transfer request (decision 76); and (2) a recommendation, using the September 2, 2008 SRS, that the applicant’s Institutional Adjustment score be increased from low to moderate (decision 77).

The applicant contends that he was never consulted during the AD process or provided with a copy of the information used to render the decisions. On March 5, 2009, both recommendations were finalized by Acting Warden Angie Vankoughnett. [ 7 ] On April 3, 2009, the applicant filed a first level grievance against the October 3, 2008 AD, arguing that it had not been completed within the required timeframe set forth in Commissioner’s Directive 710, and requested that the negative AD be removed from his file in the Offender’s Management System (OMS). On June 17, 2009, the grievance was upheld in part.

Although the transfer application was in fact not dealt with within the allotted timeframe, the applicant’s request to have the AD removed from the OMS was denied because his transfer application was not withdrawn. [ 8 ] The first level grievance response also notes that the applicant refused to meet with MAI MacAusland on June 2, 2009 when the MAI attempted to meet with him to obtain more information about his concerns.

The applicant contends that the reason for his refusal was that MAI MacAusland was himself involved in the completion of the impugned AD. [ 9 ] On June 23, 2009, the applicant filed a second level grievance asking that the transfer write-up be unlocked and that his SRS score be returned to what it was prior to September 2, 2008.

On August 26, 2009, the second level grievance was denied entirely on the basis that the increase in the applicant’s Security Level and Institutional Adjustment was a result of ongoing behavioural concerns and that there was no additional information to justify what the applicant requested. [ 10 ] On October 8, 2009, the applicant filed a third level grievance making a number of allegations which were resumed in five issues in the impugned decision.

The four issues of importance to this judicial review were rejected pursuant to Commissioner’s Directives (CD) 081, paragraph 1, for not having been raised at the lower level. The provision states as follows: Policy objective 1. To support the resolution of offender complaints and grievances promptly and fairly at the lowest possible level in a manner that is consistent with the law. Objectif de la politique 1.

Favoriser le règlement rapide et équitable des plaintes et des griefs des délinquants au plus bas palier possible et d’une manière conforme à la loi. [ 11 ] More specifically, the applicant contended in his third level grievance that 1) MAI MacAusland was involved as analyst in the first level grievance while he participated in the completion of the October 3, 2008, AD; 2) Assistant Warden Vankoughnett (Institutional Head) responded to the first level grievance which concerned a decision she rendered herself; 3) APO Benett accessed the applicant’s OMS file while he was no longer on her caseload at the time the October 3, 2008 AD was completed; and 4) the finalization of decision 77 on March 5, 2009 based the calculation of his SRS score after he was cleared and released from segregation was not accurate. [ 12 ] It is worth noting that the respondents in this case have not filed any affidavits contradicting the applicant’s version of facts or made any allegations to this effect.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES [ 13 ] The applicant alleges that the impugned decision is made in breach of procedural fairness and the principle of audi alteram partem as the Executive

Summary recommendations completed on December 12, 2009 by Analyst Dwight Lalonde, were not made available to him prior to the making of the impugned decision. Had he been given the opportunity to take cognizance of the information relied upon, the applicant contends he would have been able to clarify to the decision maker why he was not able to raise the issues at the lower levels. [ 14 ] In addition to the Common law duty of procedural fairness, the applicant contends that the Assistant Commissioner acted in

breach of his statutory duty pursuant to subsection 27(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , SC 1992, c 20 (the CCRA) which requires the decision maker to provide the offender with “ all the information to be considered in the taking of the decision”. [ 15 ] Similarly, the applicant alleges that subsection 80(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations , SOR/92-620 (the CCRR) requires the Commissioner to provide the offender with a copy of his or her “ decision, including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the offender submits an appeal”. [ 16 ] The applicant also submits that the Assistant Commissioner erred in deciding that paragraph 1 of CD 081 could be used to reject issues not previously raised.

It is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner erred in rejecting the above-mentioned issues, contrary to paragraph 47 of CD 081, which states that only when “ portions of a complaint or grievance are considered frivolous, vexatious, offensive or not made in good faith, the decision maker may reject the entire grievance or portions thereof ”.

Furthermore, the applicant submits that paragraph 37 of CD 081 requires the decision maker to “ ensure that grievers are provided with complete, written responses to all issues raised in complaints and grievances ” . [ 17 ] The applicant finally contends that the respondent Assistant Commissioner Policy acted beyond the scope of his delegated powers by exercising the decision making authority under subsection 80(3) of the CCRR .

It is submitted that although the Assistant Commissioner was provided authorization to exercise the powers, duties and functions of Commissioner under subsection 80(2) of the CCRR, no provision authorizes him to carry out the decision on behalf of the Commissioner. [ 18 ] The respondents submit that the impugned decision is correct and reasonable in holding that since the applicant’s initial submission in this grievance concerned only the timeframe in which the AD regarding his transfer application was completed, no other allegations can be raised at the national level that were not raised at the lower levels.

In support of this argument, the respondents allege that, as is well-settled in the jurisprudence, a plaintiff should exhaust the internal grievance procedure with regard to any new claim before seeking a judicial review: McMaster v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FC 647 at paras 24-25 ; Olah v Canada (Attorney General ), 2006 FC 1245 at paras 13-14 . [ 19 ] With respect to the delegation of power by the Commissioner, the respondents submit that paragraphs 5 and 29 of CD 081 authorize the Commissioner to delegate his decision making power in accordance with the CCRA .

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK [ 20 ] The relevant sections of the legislation are as follows: Corrections and Conditional Release Act , SC 1992 c 20 Information to be given to offenders 27.

(1) Where an offender is entitled by this Part or the regulations to make representations in relation to a decision to be taken by the Service about the offender, the person or body that is to take the decision shall, subject to subsection (3), give the offender, a reasonable period before the decision is to be taken, all the information to be considered in the taking of the decision or a

summary of that information. Idem Communication de renseignements au délinquant 27.

(1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), la personne ou l’organisme chargé de rendre, au nom du Service, une décision au sujet d’un délinquant doit, lorsque celui-ci a le droit en vertu de la présente

partie ou des règlements de présenter des observations, lui communiquer, dans un délai raisonnable avant la prise de décision, tous les renseignements entrant en ligne de compte dans celle-ci, ou un

sommaire de ceux-ci. Idem

(2) Where an offender is entitled by this Part or the regulations to be given reasons for a decision taken by the Service about the offender, the person or body that takes the decision shall, subject to subsection (3), give the offender, forthwith after the decision is taken, all the information that was considered in the taking of the decision or a

summary of that information. Exceptions

(3) Except in relation to decisions on disciplinary offences, where the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of information under subsection (1) or (2) would jeopardize (

a) the safety of any person, (

b) the security of a penitentiary, or (

c) the conduct of any lawful investigation, the Commissioner may authorize the withholding from the offender of as much information as is strictly necessary in order to protect the interest identified in paragraph ( a ), (

b) or ( c ). [...] Grievance procedure 90. There shall be a procedure for fairly and expeditiously resolving offenders’ grievances on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the procedure shall operate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96( u ). [...] Regulations 96. The Governor in Council may make regulations

(2) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), cette personne ou cet organisme doit, dès que sa décision est rendue, faire connaître au délinquant qui y a droit au

titre de la présente

partie ou des règlements les renseignements pris en compte dans la décision, ou un

sommaire de ceux-ci. Exception

(3) Sauf dans le cas des infractions disciplinaires, le commissaire peut autoriser, dans la mesure jugée strictement nécessaire toutefois, le refus de communiquer des renseignements au délinquant s’il a des motifs raisonnables de croire que cette communication mettrait en danger la sécurité d’une personne ou du pénitencier ou compromettrait la tenue d’une enquête licite. [...] Procédure de règlement 90. Est établie, conformément aux règlements d’application de l’alinéa 96 u ), une procédure de règlement juste et expéditif des griefs des délinquants sur des questions relevant du commissaire.

[...] (

u) prescribing an offender rievance procedure; [...] [...] Règlements 96. Le gouverneur en conseil peut prendre des règlements : [...]

u) fixant la procédure de règlement des griefs des délinquants; [...] Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations , SOR/92-620 Offender Grievance Procedure 74.

(1) Where an offender is dissat isfied with an action or a decision by a staff member, the offender may submit a written complaint, preferably in the form provided by the Service, to the supervisor of that staff member.

(2) Where a complaint is submitted pursuant to subsection (1), every effort shall be made by staff members and the offender to resolve the matter informally through discussion.

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a supervisor shall review a complaint and give the offender a copy of the supervisor's decision as soon as practicable after the offender submits the complaint.

(4) A supervisor may refuse to review a complaint submitted pursuant to subsection (1) where, in the opinion of the supervisor, the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith.

(5) Where a supervisor refuses to Procédure de règlement de griefs des délinquants 74.

(1) Lorsqu'il est insatisfait d'une action ou d'une décision de l'agent, le délinquant peut présenter une plainte au supérieur de cet agent, par écrit et de préférence sur une formule fournie par le Service.

(2) Les agents et le délinquant qui a présenté une plainte conformément au paragraphe (1) doivent prendre toutes les mesures utiles pour régler la question de façon informelle.

(3) Sous réserve des paragraphes (4) et (5), le supérieur doit examiner la plainte et fournir copie de sa décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte.

(4) Le supérieur peut refuser d'examiner une plainte présentée conformément au paragraphe (1) si, à son avis, la plainte est futile ou vexatoire ou n'est pas faite de bonne foi.

review a complaint pursuant to subsection (4), the supervisor shall give the offender a copy of the supervisor's decision, including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the offender submits the complaint. 75. Where a supervisor refuses to review a complaint pursuant to subsection 74(4) or where an offender is not satisfied with the decision of a supervisor referred to in subsection 74(3), the offender may submit a written grievance, preferably in the form provided by the Service, (

a) to the institutional head or to the director of the parole district, as the case may be; or (

b) where the institutional head or director is the subject of the grievance, to the head of the region. 76.

(1) The institutional head, director of the parole district or head of the region, as the case may be, shall review a grievance to determine whether the subject- matter of the grievance falls within the jurisdiction of the Service.

(2) Where the subject-matter of a grievance does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Service, the person who is reviewing the grievance pursuant to subsection (1) shall advise the offender in writing and inform the offender of any other means of redress available. 77.

(1) In the case of an inmate's grievance, where there is an inmate grievance committee in the penitentiary, the institutional head may refer the grievance to that committee.

(2) An inmate grievance committee shall submit its

(5) Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe (4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner une plainte, il doit fournir au délinquant une copie de sa décision motivée aussitôt que possible après que celui-ci a présenté sa plainte. 75. Lorsque, conformément au paragraphe 74(4), le supérieur refuse d'examiner la plainte ou que la décision visée au paragraphe 74(3) ne satisfait pas le délinquant, celui-ci peut présenter un grief, par écrit et de préférence sur une formule fournie par le Service :

a) soit au directeur du pénitencier ou au directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles, selon le cas;

b) soit, si c'est le directeur du pénitencier ou le directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles qui est mis en cause, au responsable de la région. 76.

(1) Le directeur du pénitencier, le directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles ou le responsable de la région, selon le cas, doit examiner le grief afin de déterminer s'il relève de la compétence du Service.

(2) Lorsque le grief porte sur un sujet qui ne relève pas de la compétence du Service, la personne qui a examiné le grief conformément au paragraphe (1) doit en informer le délinquant par écrit et lui indiquer les autres recours possibles. 77.

(1) Dans le cas d'un grief présenté par le détenu, lorsqu'il existe un comité d'examen des griefs des détenus dans le pénitencier, le directeur du pénitencier peut transmettre le grief à ce comité.

recommendations respecting an inmate's grievance to the institutional head as soon as practicable after the grievance is referred to the committee.

(3) The institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the inmate grievance committee. 78. The person who is reviewing a grievance pursuant to

section 75 shall give the offender a copy of the person's decision as soon as practicable after the offender submits the grievance. 79.

(1) Where the institutional head makes a decision respecting an inmate's grievance, the inmate may request that the institutional head refer the inmate's grievance to an outside review board, and the institutional head shall refer the grievance to an outside review board.

(2) The outside review board shall submit its recommendations to the institutional head as soon as practicable after the grievance is referred to the board.

(3) The institutional head shall give the inmate a copy of the institutional head's decision as soon as practicable after receiving the recommendations of the outside review board. 80.

(1) Where an offender is not satisfied with a decision of the institutional head or director of the parole district respecting the offender's grievance, the offender may appeal the decision to the head of the region.

(2) Where an offender is not satisfied with the decision of the head of the region respecting the offender's grievance, the offender may appeal the decision to the Commissioner.

(2) Le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus doit présenter au directeur ses recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que possible après en avoir été saisi.

(3) Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité d'examen des griefs des détenus. 78. La personne qui examine un grief selon l'article 75 doit remettre copie de sa décision au délinquant aussitôt que possible après que le détenu a présenté le grief. 79.

(1) Lorsque le directeur du pénitencier rend une décision concernant le grief du détenu, celui-ci peut demander que le directeur transmette son grief à un comité externe d'examen des griefs, et le directeur doit accéder à cette demande.

(2) Le comité externe d'examen des griefs doit présenter au directeur du pénitencier ses recommandations au sujet du grief du détenu aussitôt que possible après en avoir été saisi.

(3) Le directeur du pénitencier doit remettre au détenu une copie de sa décision aussitôt que possible après avoir reçu les recommandations du comité externe d'examen des griefs. 80.

(1) Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de son grief par le directeur du pénitencier ou par le directeur de district des libérations conditionnelles, il peut en appeler au responsable de la région.

(3) The head of the region or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall give the offender a copy of the head of the region's or Commissioner's decision, including the reasons for the decision, as soon as practicable after the offender submits an appeal. 81.

(1) Where an offender decides to pursue a legal remedy for the offender's complaint or grievance in addition to the complaint and grievance procedure referred to in these Regulations, the review of the complaint or grievance pursuant to these Regulations shall be deferred until a decision on the alternate remedy is rendered or the offender decides to abandon the alternate remedy.

(2) Where the review of a complaint or grievance is deferred pursuant to subsection (1), the person who is reviewing the complaint or grievance shall give the offender written notice of the decision to defer the review. 82. In reviewing an offender's complaint or grievance, the person reviewing the complaint or grievance shall take into consideration (

a) any efforts made by staff members and the offender to resolve the complaint or grievance, and any recommendations resulting therefrom; (

b) any recommendations made by an inmate grievance committee or outside review board; and (

c) any decision made respecting an alternate remedy referred to in subsection 81(1).

(2) Lorsque le délinquant est insatisfait de la décision rendue au sujet de son grief par le responsable de la région, il peut en appeler au commissaire.

(3) Le responsable de la région ou le commissaire, selon le cas, doit transmettre au délinquant copie de sa décision motivée aussitôt que possible après que le délinquant a interjeté appel. 81.

(1) Lorsque le délinquant décide de prendre un recours judiciaire concernant sa plainte ou son grief, en plus de présenter une plainte ou un grief selon la procédure prévue dans le présent règlement, l'examen de la plainte ou du grief conformément au présent règlement est suspendu jusqu'à ce qu'une décision ait été rendue dans le recours judiciaire ou que le détenu s'en désiste.

(2) Lorsque l'examen de la plainte ou au grief est suspendu conformément au paragraphe (1), la personne chargée de cet examen doit en informer le délinquant par écrit. 82. Lors de l'examen de la plainte ou du grief, la personne chargée de cet examen doit tenir compte :

a) des mesures prises par les agents et le délinquant pour régler la question sur laquelle porte la plainte ou le grief et des recommandations en découlant;

b) des recommandations faites par le comité d'examen des griefs des détenus et par le comité

externe d'examen des griefs;

c) de toute décision rendue dans le recours judiciaire visé au paragraphe 81(1). Commissioner’s Directive 081 Policy objective 1. To support the resolution of offender complaints and grievances promptly and fairly at the lowest possible level in a manner that is consistent with the law. [...] 5. Decision-maker : the staff member who responds to a complaint or grievance at any level of the complaint or grievance process (normally the supervisor, Institutional Head, Regional Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner, or their delegate). [...] 29.

The decision of the Commissioner or his/her delegate constitutes the final stage of the complaint and grievance process. [...] Responses 37. The decision-maker will ensure that grievers are provided with complete, written responses to all issues raised in complaints and grievances. Objectif de la politique 1. Favoriser le règlement rapide et équitable des plaintes et des griefs des délinquants au plus bas palier possible et d’une manière conforme à la loi. [...] 5.

Décideur : membre du personnel qui répond à une plainte ou à un grief présenté à tout palier du processus de règlement des plaintes et griefs (normalement le surveillant, le directeur de l'établissement, le sous-commissaire régional ou le commissaire, ou encore leur représentant). [...] 29. La décision du commissaire ou de son représentant constitue l'étape finale du processus de règlement des plaintes et griefs. [...] Réponses 37. Le décideur doit veiller à ce que le plaignant reçoive, par écrit, une réponse complète à toutes les questions soulevées dans sa plainte ou son grief.

[...] Rejection of Complaints orGrievances 47. If portions of a complaint orgrievance are consideredfrivolous, vexatious, offensive ornot made in good faith, thedecision-maker may reject theentire grievance or portionsthereof. Where any element ofthe complaint or grievancerelates to an urgent matter, thedecision-maker must respond tothat portion within the requiredtimeframes.

Otherwise thedecision-maker has two options: a. he/she may respond to theportions of the complaint orgrievance that are not frivolous,vexatious, made in bad faith oroffensive and reject theinappropriate portions (indicatingthe rationale for this); or b. he/she may reject the entiregrievance and return it to theoffender indicating the rationalefor rejection and requiring theoffender to re-draft the complaintor grievance eliminating theinappropriate portions if theoffender wishes the complaint orgrievance to be reviewed. [...] Rejet des plaintes ou des griefs 47. Si une

partie d'une plainte oud'un grief est jugée futile,vexatoire, offensante ou entachéede mauvaise foi, le décideur peutrejeter la plainte ou le grief enpartie ou en totalité.

Lorsqu'unélément de la plainte ou du griefconcerne une question urgente, ledécideur doit répondre à cettepartie dans les délais prescrits.Dans les autres cas, le décideur adeux possibilités : a. il peut répondre aux partiesde la plainte ou du grief qui nesont pas futiles, vexatoires,entachées de mauvaise foi ouoffensantes, et rejeter les autresparties (en indiquant le motif desa décision); b. il peut rejeter la plainte oule grief en totalité et le retournerau délinquant en indiquant lemotif du rejet et en lui demandantde reformuler sa plainte ou songrief et d'en éliminer les partiesinappropriées s'il désire que saplainte ou son grief soit examiné.

ANALYSIS [21] The question of delegation of power by the Commissioner to the Acting Assistant Commissioner for the purpose ofaddressing a third level grievance or rendering a final decision in the grievance process has been dealt with by this Court in Mennes vMcClung et al, 2001 FCT 1349 , [2001] FCJ 1830 at paras 20-27.

Relying particularly on subsection 2(2) and sections 97-98 ofthe CCRA, as well as CD 081 and the inclusion printed at the bottom of the decision of the Commissioner (Third level grievance -National), the Court concluded that there is “no requirement under the Act or the Regulations for the Commissioner of Corrections, toindividually or directly review complaints at the Third level appeal or at any other level” and that the Acting Assistant Commissioner inthat case “held the proper authority by virtue of the aforementioned sources in rendering her final decision of the grievance process undersubsections 80(2) and 80(3) of the Act”. [22] In the present case, the authority has been delegated to the respondent Assistant Commissioner Policy who was, in light of theabove jurisprudence, properly authorized to decide the grievance submitted by the applicant.

The other question to be addressed iswhether the Assistant Commissioner breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicant or committed a reviewable error indeciding the grievance. [23] It is not disputed that the applicable standard of review for procedural fairness and the

interpretation of legislation iscorrectness while merits of decisions made by the CSC on offender grievances should be reviewed against the standard ofreasonableness: Tehrankari v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 628 at para 24.

[24] In deciding whether the applicant was treated fairly during the grievance process, the Court shall determine whether theprocess followed by the decision maker satisfied the level of fairness required in the administrative context generally (Canada(Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 43; Gallant v Canada (Deputy Commissioner, Correctional ServiceCanada, (FCA), [1989] FCJ 70 (CA)) and respected the procedural rights afforded to offenders through the relevantlegislative and regulatory provisions. [25] The jurisprudence is constant that subsection 27(1) of the CCRA gives the offender an additional right to receive all therelevant information prior to any decision being taken on a transfer request, although the extent of this right varies when the decision ismore or less discretionary in nature (Leblanc v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 1337 at paras 20-22; Mallette v Canada (AttorneyGeneral), 2004 FC 151 at paras 39-42).

Similarly, in Mymryk v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 632 at para 20, while reviewing adecision of the Appeal Division of the National Parole Board, this Court held that the statutory disclosure obligations (such as sections27 and 141 of the CCRA) incumbent on CSC when making a decision that concerns an offender, entitles the offender to be supplied witha

summary of the information that is going to be relied on in circumstances where CSC justifies the necessity to withhold certaininformation (subsections 27(3) and 141(4) of CCRA). As the Court mentioned in Mymryk, this approach is consistent with the SupremeCourt conclusion in May v Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82 at para 95, that “s. 27(1) of the CCRA imposes an onerous disclosureobligation on CSC”. [26] Having reviewed the third level Executive

Summary, the Court is satisfied that the recommendations contained in thisdocument have been wholly relied upon and have negatively impacted the decision maker.

Since there is no indication in this case thatsubsections 27(2) and (3) of the CCRA (which permit the withholding of information under certain circumstances) apply here, it is clearthat CSC’s failure to follow the procedure prescribed by law kept the applicant from eventually clarifying his issues against thecontested AD and resulted in a violation of the applicant’s right to be treated fairly. [27] Be that as it may, in the case at bar, the respondents do not argue the extent of the common law duty to act fairly, nor do theychallenge the statutory obligations under

section 27 of the CCRA. Rather the respondents take issue with the fact that the issues raised bythe applicant at the third level depart from his initial claim in this grievance which concerned the timeframe to complete the October 3,2008 AD. [28] It is nonetheless clear that all of the issues raised by the applicant both in the second and the third level grievances wererelated to the contested AD of which the applicant sought the removal from his OMS file following his release from segregation.

In fact,the applicant’s issues either concerned the persons involved in the making of decisions at different levels of grievance or were related todecision 77 and the material on the basis of which it was made, namely the September 2, 2008 SRS. The fact that the applicant requestedthat the negative AD be removed from his OMS file shows that he also took issue with the content of the AD. Furthermore, it is obviousthat the SRS, which determines the appropriate level of security throughout the offender's sentence, is of a continuous nature andcontains referential information for CSC decision makers.

Therefore the applicant’s SRS issue in the third level grievance was not anentirely new one. [29] I agree with the respondents that, as this Court has stated on many occasions (see for example: Condo v Canada (AttorneyGeneral), 2003 FCA 99; Giesbrecht v Canada, (FC), [1998] FCJ 621; Collin v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC544; McMaster v Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 647; Olah v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 1245; and FerndaleInstitution, above at paras 52-58), the CSC internal grievance process constitutes an adequate alternative remedy which should generallybe pursued by applicants prior to a judicial review.

However, the respondent’s reliance on this jurisprudence is misplaced in the presentcase because, in my view, the applicant’s grievance has entirely been disposed of internally. [30] Furthermore, it is important to note that every appeal under the CSC grievance procedure is conducted de novo and cannot bestrictly limited to the allegations as raised in the first level grievance.

In Tyrrell v Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 42 at paras 37-38,Justice Snider stated: Grievance procedures under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 are governed by the Corrections andConditional Release Regulations, S.O.R./92-620, ss. 74-82). The procedure was described by Justice Rothstein in the case of Giesbrechtv. Canada, (FC), [1998] F.C.J.

No. 621 at para. 10 (T.D.) (QL): Grievances are to be handled expeditiously and time limits are provided in the Commissioner's Directives...Through the grievanceprocedure an inmate may appeal a decision on the merits and an appeal tribunal may substitute its decision for that of the tribunalappealed from (see also Wild v. Canada, [2006] F.C.J. No. 999, 2006 FC 777 at para. 9). In other words, at each higher level of the grievance procedure, the decision maker may substitute its decision for that rendered by thedecision maker below.

Therefore, although technically an “appeal”, the nature of the grievance process allows each subsequent decisionmaker to approach a grievance as a de novo review and to hear new evidence (see, for example, Besse v. Canada (Minister of NationalRevenue - M.N.R.), (FCA), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1790 at para. 5 (C.A.) (QL)).

[ 31 ] Thus, in the circumstances, I agree with the applicant that it is contrary to the rationale and the objective of the offender grievance procedure as set out in

section 90 of the CCRA and sections 74 to 82 of the CCRR to ask the applicant to restart from square one, should he wish to raise any of the above-mentioned issues against the contested AD.

Furthermore, the respondents have not alleged that they suffered any prejudice and there is no evidence of prejudice on their side, while there is definitively a prejudice suffered by the applicant. [ 32 ] I therefore conclude that the CSC also failed to comply with paragraph 37 of CD 081, which provides that the decision maker will ensure that the griever is provided with complete responses “to all issues raised” in his or her grievance. The impugned decision is thus unreasonable. [ 33 ] In view of the above reasons , the present application for judicial review shall be allowed.

In addition, the applicant, who is self-represented, has asked the Court to grant him the costs of his application. In the exercise of the Court’s discretion and considering that in view of the second and the third level grievance responses the applicant was in some way forced into this judicial review, I consider it reasonable to award him costs in the amount of $350, all inclusive, payable forthwith. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ADJUGES AND ORDERS: 1. The application for judicial review is granted ; 2.

The third level grievance decision rendered on December 18, 2009 in file n° V40A00033184 is set aside and remitted to the Correctional Service of Canada to be determined in accordance with these reasons ; and 3. The applicant shall be entitled to costs in the amount of $350, all inclusive, payable forthwith. “Luc Martineau" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-241-10 STYLE OF CAUSE: JASON LEWIS AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IAN MCCOWAN OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal , Quebec DATE OF HEARING: October 18, 2011

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: MARTINEAU J. DATED: October 31, 2011 APPEARANCES : Jason Lewis FOR THE APPLICANT (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Toni Abi Nasr FOR THE RESPONDENTS SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Jason Lewis Port Cartier, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT (ON HIS OWN BEHALF) Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montreal , Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENTS