WILLIAM FENWICK WEST Applicant v. PAROLE BOARD OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISON, 2020 FC 126

Date: 20200124 Docket: T-672-19 Citation: 2020 FC 126 Ottawa, Ontario, January 24, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley BETWEEN: WILLIAM FENWICK WEST Applicant and PAROLE BOARD OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISON AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondents JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Introduction [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. William Fenwick West, represented himself in this application for judicial review. Mr.

West contends that he has been unfairly treated by the criminal justice system in the Province of Nova Scotia, notably in his convictions for two armed robberies and related offences and his lack of success on appeal of those convictions. He maintains his innocence with respect to those offences. His objective is to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and, should leave be granted, introduce fresh evidence that the convictions were the result of a conspiracy against him by the investigating officers. [ 2 ] Mr.

West says that he has been thwarted in achieving that objective by decisions of the Parole Board of Canada (the Board or the PBC); in particular, the Board’s decision on November 24, 2018 to impose a residency condition upon him in the context of his statutory release. That decision was affirmed by the Appeal Division of the Board on March 21, 2019. While Mr. West’s written and oral submissions covered a wide range of topics, it is the Appeal Division’s decision which is the subject of this application. II. Background [ 3 ] According to the Board’s decision, Mr.

West’s criminal history began in 1967 with a theft conviction. In 1981 he received a sentence of six years for armed robbery, abduction and the use of a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence. [ 4 ] The index offences for which Mr. West remains under the supervision of the Board occurred in 1998 and involved the armed robbery of two banks in Mahone Bay and Bass River, Nova Scotia during which bank employees were forcibly confined at gun point. Mr.

West’s initial conviction for the Mahone Bay incident was overturned by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 2003 and a new trial ordered ( R v West , 2003 NSCA 137 ). He was convicted on the retrial and at trial for the Bass River robbery. His appeal of the latter conviction was dismissed by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in 2010 ( R v West , 2010 NSCA 16 ). [ 5 ] Mr. West was also convicted in March 2007 of the offence of intimidation of a justice system participant. That conviction apparently arose from threats Mr.

West made to shoot the Crown Prosecutor and police witnesses during his retrial for the Mahone Bay robbery. In total, he received a cumulative sentence of almost nineteen years. His warrant expiry date is April 1, 2025. [ 6 ] Mr. West was denied parole when eligible. In conducting a review prior to his eligibility date for statutory release at two-thirds of this sentence, December 3, 2018, the Board accepted the recommendation of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) that a residency condition, among other conditions, be imposed.

Among the reasons provided in the CSC appraisal was his failure to take steps to mitigate his risk of violence. The author of the assessment, a Parole Officer, considered that a residency requirement was necessary and proportionate to manage the Applicant’s risk in the community.

This was based in part on the Applicant’s refusal to acknowledge responsibility for the 1998 robbery offences. [ 7 ] In supporting that conclusion, the Board made the following comments: In reviewing your case against the criteria for residency condition during statutory release, the Board notes a clearly demonstrated potential for future violent behavior. Your offence history reflects a repeated pattern of using firearms and direct and/or implied threats to gain compliance of victims, and physical handling and bindings to restrain them.

In one instance you abducted and held captive a victim for a lengthy period of time. You also have issued threats to shoot and/or harm other individuals involved in the justice process and correctional systems over a period of many years. When viewed against your continued assertions to have not committed most of the offenses for which you have been convicted, the Board assesses a clear absence of any accountability on your part for your criminal actions, and an utter disregard for, and indifference towards, the impact that your serious criminal offending has had on the victims.

You have acquired no discernible insight into your criminal offending or the risk factors that have contributed to your involvement in violent crime. Although you have participated in programming, your motivation and efforts have been

thoroughly lacking. Your behavior towards correctional staff charged with assisting in guiding you has regularly been aggressive, argumentative and dismissive. In view of all of these factors, the Board is satisfied that you have a clear potential for future violent behavior to the extent that a residency condition is considered necessary to facilitate your reintegration. Furthermore, the Board concludes that in the absence of such a condition, you will present an undue risk to society by committing an offence listed in

Schedule 1 before the expiration of your sentence according to law. As a result, you must reside at a Community Correctional Center or a Community Residential Facility or other residential facility (such as private home placement) approved by CSC, until your warrant expiry date. [ 8 ] The Applicant provided some written submissions to the Board on November 1, 2018 asserting that his claims of innocence were being unfairly held against him in determining his recidivism risk and that the residency condition imposed an unfair burden on his return to the community by adding more restrictions and limitations.

On November 6, 2018 he signed a declaration acknowledging that he had received the documents in the Board file and indicating his intention to provide further written comments to the Board within 15 days. On November 21, 2018 Mr. West submitted a package for mailing at the Springhill Institution to the Board by XPresspost. It was not received in time to be considered by the Board before its decision was rendered. Mr. West attributes this to a labour dispute within Canada Post at the time. [ 9 ] Mr. West’s appeal to the Appeal Division was received on February 2, 2019. The grounds of appeal included:

(1) That the Board had failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice in not considering the XPresspost package;

(2) That the Board had breached or failed to apply a PBC policy and;

(3) That the Board’s decision was based on erroneous or incomplete information. [ 10 ] On March 21, 2019, the Appeal Division affirmed the Board’s decision to impose the residency condition. At the outset of its decision, the Appeal Division noted that it was the responsibility of CSC to resolve issues surrounding the correctness of information in an inmate’s CSC files following the mechanism set out in s. 24 (1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act SC 1992, c 20 [ CCRA ]. [ 11 ] With regard to the late arrival of the XPresspost package, the Appeal Division stated that it was Mr.

West’s responsibility to ensure that his written submissions were received within fifteen days of the date on which he received the documents in his file. [ 12 ] The Appeal Division concluded that it was reasonable for the Board to find that Mr. West had clearly demonstrated potential for future violent behavior, as demonstrated by his offence history.

Having recited some of that history, the Appeal Division stated: The Appeal division finds that in view of all of these factors, it was reasonable for the Board to be satisfied that you have a clear potential for future violent behavior to the extent that a residency condition is considered necessary to facilitate your reintegration. The Appeal Division finds that it was reasonable for the Board to find that you had demonstrated a propensity for violence, and to be satisfied that you would present an undue risk to society by committing, before the expiration of your sentence according to law an offence set out in

Schedule 1 or an offence under 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13 of the Criminal Code . In conclusion, the Appeal Division finds that the Board’s decision to impose a residency condition is reasonable, well supported and consistent with the decision-making criteria set out in subsection 133 (4.1) of the CCRA . [ 13 ] In closing, the Appeal Division reminded Mr. West that special conditions such as the residency requirement may be removed or modified by the Board as his situation in the community progresses upon a request from his Case Management Team (CMT). [ 14 ] On this application, Mr. West seeks: A.

An order directing or recommending to the Parole Board of Canada and/or Appeal Division that the " “Residency Condition” " imposed on Friday, November 30, 2018 upon Statutory Release be rescinded; B.

An order directing the Parole Board of Canada and/or Appeal Division that under the " “rule of law” " , it is well within their jurisdiction to consider, that when an inmate submits continuous documentation, etc. to support the fraudulent, erroneous, misleading and incomplete information that had been recorded in Correctional Service of Canada reports for which the Board considers as “Gospel”, that although not corrected by CSC, the information submitted should be considered; C.

An order directing the Parole Board of Canada and or Appeal Division that an inmate who has no acts of " “physical violence” " recorded on his record who has steadfastly maintained his innocence since 1998 and 1990 for two criminal matters, through appeals, etc., directed by the RCMP for me to take up the issues with the Supreme Court of Canada, should not have been continuously denied parole releases, or to have a " “Residency Condition” " imposed; allegedly possible until warrant expiry. III. Issues [ 15 ] In his application record, Mr. West sets out three questions which he wished the Court to address.

These can be briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Was it constitutionally valid for the Board to deny his parole applications given the lack of physicalviolence on his record and given his proclaimed innocence;

(2) As compared to other inmates who have admitted their criminal activities and been violent, has theparole system treated him fairly; and

(3) Can the system expect him to have the resources and time to pursue full exoneration, thereby provinghis claims of innocence? [16] As noted above, the Appeal Division’s decision was not about these questions but rather about the Applicant’s residency condition.

In his "“Concise Statement of Submissions”", the Applicant requests that the "“unjustified imposed Residency Condition to be set asideand that the Applicant be granted a Full Parole release”". [17] It is well-established that a Court should generally avoid making any unnecessary constitutional pronouncement: Tremblay vDaigle, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 530 at p 571. A Court is not bound to answer constitutional questions when it may disposeof the matter without doing so: Skoke-Graham v. The Queen, (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 106, at p 121. I see no reason toresile from these principles in Mr. West’s case.

He has failed to provide even a bare minimum of evidence or argument in order tosupport a constitutional analysis. In my view, this matter can be resolved on administrative law principles. [18] I agree with the Respondent that the issues to be determined are as follows:

(1) Did the Appeal Division err in law by declining to resolve issues concerning the correctness of information in the CSC file;

(2) Did the Board act unfairly and did the Appeal Division demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias by declining to considerthe substance of the XPresspost package;

(3) Was the decision to impose a residency condition reasonable? IV. Relevant Legislation [19] A number of sections in the CCRA are relevant to the subject matter of this judicial review: "Accuracy, etc., of information " "Exactitude des renseignements ""24

(1) The Service shall take all reasonablesteps to ensure that any information about anoffender that it uses is as accurate, up to dateand complete as possible. " "24 (1)"" Le Service est tenu de veiller, dansla mesure du possible, à ce que lesrenseignements qu’il utilise concernant lesdélinquants soient à jour, exacts et complets.""Correction of information " "Correction des renseignements ""

(2) Where an offender who has been givenaccess to information by the Service pursuantto subsection 23(2) believes that there is anerror or omission therein, " "(2)"" Le délinquant qui croit que lesrenseignements auxquels il a eu accès envertu du paragraphe 23(2) sont erronés ouincomplets peut demander que le Service eneffectue la correction; lorsque la demande estrefusée, le Service doit faire mention descorrections qui ont été demandées mais noneffectuées. ""(

a) the offender may request the Service tocorrect that information; and " "[EN BLANC] " "(

b) where the request is refused, the Serviceshall attach to the information a notationindicating that the offender has requested acorrection and setting out the correctionrequested. " "[EN BLANC] " "Entitlement to statutory release " "Droit du délinquant ""127

(1) Subject to any provision of this Act,an offender sentenced, committed ortransferred to penitentiary is entitled to bereleased on the date determined in accordancewith this

section and to remain at large untilthe expiration of the sentence according tolaw. " "127 (1)""

Sous réserve des autresdispositions de la présente loi, l’individucondamné ou transféré au pénitencier a ledroit d’être mis en liberté à la date fixéeconformément au présent

article et de ledemeurer jusqu’à l’expiration légale de sapeine. ""Residence requirement " "Assignation à résidence "

" 133

(4.1) In order to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of an offender, the releasing authority may, as a condition of statutory release, require that the offender reside in a community-based residential facility or a psychiatric facility if the releasing authority is satisfied that, in the absence of such a condition, the offender will present an undue risk to society by committing, before the expiration of their sentence according to law, an offence set out in

Schedule I or an offence under

section 467.11 , 467.12 or 467.13 of the Criminal Code . " " 133 (4.1) " " L’autorité compétente peut, pour faciliter la réinsertion sociale du délinquant, ordonner que celui-ci, à

titre de condition de sa libération d’office, demeure dans un établissement résidentiel communautaire ou un établissement psychiatrique si elle est convaincue qu’à défaut de cette condition la perpétration par le délinquant de toute infraction visée à l’annexe I ou d’une infraction prévue aux articles 467.11 , 467.12 ou 467.13 du Code criminel avant l’expiration légale de sa peine présentera un risque inacceptable pour la société. " " Right of Appeal " " Droit d’appel " " 147

(1) An offender may appeal a decision of the Board to the Appeal Division on the ground that the Board, in making its decision, " " 147 (1) " " Le délinquant visé par une décision de la Commission peut interjeter appel auprès de la

Section d’appel pour l’un ou plusieurs des motifs suivants : " " (

a) failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice; " "

a) la Commission a violé un principe de justice fondamentale; " " (

b) made an error of law; " "

b) elle a commis une erreur de droit en rendant sa décision; " " (

c) breached or failed to apply a policy adopted pursuant to subsection 151(2); " "

c) elle a contrevenu aux directives établies aux termes du paragraphe 151(2) ou ne les a pas appliquées; " " (

d) based its decision on erroneous or incomplete information; or " "

d) elle a fondé sa décision sur des renseignements erronés ou incomplets; " " (

e) acted without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. " "

e) elle a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou omis de l’exercer. " " Decision of Vice-Chairperson " " Décision du vice-président " "

(2) The Vice-Chairperson, Appeal Division, may refuse to hear an appeal, without causing a full review of the case to be undertaken, where, in the opinion of the Vice- Chairperson, " " (2) " " Le vice-président de la

Section d’appel peut refuser d’entendre un appel sans qu’il y ait réexamen complet du dossier dans les cas suivants lorsque, à son avis: " " (

a) the appeal is frivolous or vexatious; " "

a) l’appel est mal fondé et vexatoire; " "

b) the relief sought is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board; " "

b) le recours envisagé ou la décision demandée ne relève pas de la compétence de la Commission; " " (

c) the appeal is based on information or on a new parole or statutory release plan that was not before the Board when it rendered the decision appealed from; or " "

c) l’appel est fondé sur des renseignements ou sur un nouveau projet de libération conditionnelle ou d’office qui n’existaient pas au moment où la décision visée par l’appel a été rendue; " " (

d) at the time the notice of appeal is received by the Appeal Division, the offender has ninety days or less to serve before being released from imprisonment. " "

d) lors de la réception de l’avis d’appel par la

Section d’appel, le délinquant a quatre- vingt-dix jours ou moins à purger. " " Decision on Appeal " " Décision " "

(4) The Appeal Division, on the completion of a review of a decision appealed from, may " " (4) " " Au terme de la révision, la

Section d’appel peut rendre l’une des décisions suivantes: " " (

a) affirm the decision; " "

a) confirmer la décision visée par l’appel; " " (

b) affirm the decision but order a further review of the case by the Board on a date earlier than the date otherwise provided for the next review; " "

b) confirmer la décision visée par l’appel, mais ordonner un réexamen du cas avant la date normalement prévue pour le prochain examen; " " (

c) order a new review of the case by the Board and order the continuation of the decision pending the review; or " "

c) ordonner un réexamen du cas et ordonner que la décision reste en vigueur malgré la tenue du nouvel examen; " " (

d) reverse, cancel or vary the decision. " "

d) infirmer ou modifier la décision visée par l’appel. " V. Standard of Review [ 20 ] Mr. West had no observations to make in this regard. [ 21 ] The Respondent cites Ye v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 35 [ Ye ] which holds that a reasonableness standard is guiding both

when the Appeal Division is reviewing a decision of the Board, and when the Court reviews an Appeal Division decision.

The Court inYe approves of the statement made in the prior case of Desjardins v Canada (National Parole Board), [1989] FCJ No. 910 (Fed TD),that as concerns matters of parole, administrative decisions must not be interfered with by the Court "“failing clear and unequivocalevidence that the decision is quite unfair and works a serious injustice on the inmate”" (Ye para 9). [22] In applying the reasonableness standard, the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) vVavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 87 has clarified that judicial review is concerned with "“both outcome and process”".

As was thecase under the former administrative law framework articulated in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, the hallmarks ofreasonableness are justification, transparency, and intelligibility (Vavilov at paras 86-87). Under Vavilov, the decision under review mustbe justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision (Vavilov at para 99). [23] Issues of procedural fairness attract a different standard of review; one best reflected in the correctness standard (Vavilov at para 23;Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).

Specifically, with regard to all thecircumstances including the factors found in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (SCC), [1999]2 SCR 817, a reviewing court must ask whether a fair and just process was followed. VI. Analysis A. Did the Appeal Division err in law by declining to resolve issues concerning thecorrectness of information in the CSC file? [24] The Applicant contends that it was within the Appeal Division’s jurisdiction to consider whatever documents and materials he hassupplied.

He believes these submissions counterbalance and correct the "“fraudulent, erroneous, misleading, and incompleteinformation”" provided by the CSC that the Board and Appeal Division accepted uncritically "“as if they were typed by God himself”".Further, he asserts that the Appeal Division erred in law by stating that it was the sole responsibility of the CSC to resolve the issuessurrounding the correctness of various records and reports in an inmate’s CSC file. [25] Section 24(1) of the CCRA requires that the CSC ensure all information is accurate and section 24(2) provides an offender theability to request that CSC correct any inaccurate information. [26] There is authority for the proposition that an offender may petition the Court for relief when they believe that there are inaccuraciesin their prison file: Tehrankari v Canada (Correctional Service) (2000), (FC), 188 FTR 206 [Tehrankari].

However,in Tehrankari, the applicant had initially filed a complaint pursuant to subsection 24(2) of the CCRA, which was denied. The applicantthen grieved that decision under

section 90 of the CCRA, and upon exhaustion of that procedure sought judicial review before the Court. [27] The Parole Board and the Appeal Division are not empowered by Parliament to conduct the type of wide-ranging inquiry into themerits of the convictions which result in an inmate’s incarceration which the Applicant seeks. That responsibility, apart from appellatereview, has been vested in the Minister of Justice of Canada under

Part XXI.I of the Criminal Code RSC, 1985, c C-46 [Criminal Code].It does not appear that Mr. West has made an application for ministerial review under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code. He advised theCourt at the hearing that he saw that his only course of action was to seek leave to appeal and to introduce fresh evidence.

I gather thatthe fresh evidence is that which he wished the Board and the Appeal Division to consider. [28] I agree with the Respondent that it is not the duty or responsibility of the Board or the Appeal Division to correct or update CSC fileinformation in the course of carrying out their statutory duties: Eakin v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 394 [Eakin] at para 29;Reid v Canada (National Parole Board), 2002 FCT 741 at paras 19-21. The Appeal Division did not err in not addressing theApplicant’s complaints about the accuracy of the information in his file. Nor was it procedurally unfair (Eakin at para 32).

As JusticeGleeson notes in Eakin at para 32, "“this is particularly true where the formal process provided by CSC to address concerns with theaccuracy of information have not been pursued”". It does not appear from the record that the Applicant chose to pursue the process setout in the Act. B. Did the Board act unfairly and did the Appeal Division demonstrate a reasonableapprehension of bias by declining to consider the substance of the XPresspostpackage. [29] The Applicant contends that the police manufactured the evidence that resulted in his convictions for the 1998 offences.

The Boardand Appeal Division, he submits, have ignored the reality that wrongful convictions have occurred and were aware that unless theresidency condition is rescinded he "“will have absolutely no opportunity or a very limited opportunity”" to petition the Supreme Courtof Canada for redress. [30] It was open to the Board to consider the Applicant’s claims of innocence if it considered them to be relevant and reliable.

Given thelarge volume of evidence of guilt and the thorough review of his claims by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal it is not surprising that theBoard did not consider the claims to be relevant and reliable. [31] I understand that the Applicant has assembled a collection of documents relating to his trials and appeals which are now housed inover 80 boxes kept in a storage facility. Mr. West argues that while he could have the boxes transferred to the Jameson CCC in which heis presently resident, they would be stored there in the basement and he would not have convenient access to them.

He says that he isonly allowed three cubic feet of storage for his legal documents that he can easily access. This may be true but does not directly relate tothe question of whether the Appeal Division reasonably upheld the Board’s determination that a residency requirement was necessary inhis case.

[32] In connection with the delayed XPresspost package, the Applicant states that "“all claims of inaccuracy supported withdocumentation submitted by the Applicant to dispute the so-called ‘Official Version(s)’, were ignored”". [33] It is not clear from the Record what the XPresspost package contained and Mr. West was unable to assist the Court on that questionat the hearing.

The Respondent points to a note the Applicant included in his fax of November 26, 2018, which describes the XPresspostpackage as "“represent[ing] the over 100 pages sent in defence of my position, although convicted, concerning the ‘official Policeversions’”". The Respondent contends it follows from this that the contents "“would not have materially affected the decision of eitherthe Board or the Appeal Division” "as it was" “simply…a

summary of the information already before the Board”" which consisted of atotal of about 1000 pages. [34] The issue of bias is a question of law, and the test is that established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Committee for Justice andLiberty et al v National Energy Board et al, (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 369 [Committee for Justice and Liberty].

This Court, inBoucher v Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FC 1342 [Boucher] at para 16, summarized the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias asbeing four-fold: 1) there must be a likelihood of bias; 2) perceived by a reasonable and right minded person; 3) viewing the matterrealistically and practically; and 4) having thought the matter through.

Justice Noël, in Boucher at para 17, notes that it is not arequirement that the Board or Appeal Division refer to jurisprudence when assessing bias; however, their analysis must show that the keyelements of the Committee for Justice and Liberty test were explicitly or implicitly taken into consideration. [35] In its decision, the Appeal Division noted that all documents in the Applicant’s file were shared with him at least 15 days prior tothe Board making its decision, as confirmed by the Sharing of Information Form signed by the Applicant on November 6, 2018.

TheAppeal Division considered that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to get documents to the Board on time. He chose to wait until nearthe deadline in order to mail his further submissions. In doing so he bears the risk that the material would not arrive in time. In myestimation, the Appeal Division acted according to law and did not exhibit evident signs of bias in affirming the Board’s decision not toreceive the Applicant’s additional submissions past the deadline. C.

Was the decision to impose a residency condition reasonable? [36] In his submissions, the Applicant does not conduct a reasonableness analysis but contends generally that it was unreasonable toimpose a residency condition on the basis of an alleged "“clear potential for future violent behaviour”". Mr. West believes that the indexoffences, which he denies having committed, were not violent.

He considers violence to be that which results in actual physical injury ordeath and points to instances in which other offenders convicted of assaults up to and including homicides were granted parole. [37] It is evident from the record and, in particular, his submissions that Mr. West lacks insight into the reality of the psychologicalharm that can result from an armed robbery in which members of the public, the bank employees, were held at gunpoint and forced tokneel while being bound by duct tape.

The Board considered victim impact statements obtained from the employees which indicated thepersistence of that harm many years after the events in 1998. The Board reasonably concluded that the victims had suffered serious harm. [38] In applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Board and Appeal Division are entitled to "“considerable deference”" giventheir expertise in conditional release-related decisions: Chartrand v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 1183.

The task of this Court isnot to substitute its own determination for those of the Board and Appeal Division. [39] In my view, the Board properly considered the Applicant’s offence history, failure to demonstrate accountability or assumeresponsibility for his actions, persistent negative attitude towards institutional programming and problematic conduct toward correctionalstaff and other participants in the justice system. In reviewing these factors, the Board arrived at a reasonable conclusion that absent aresidency condition, the Application would present an undue risk to society by committing a

Schedule I offence before the end of hissentence. In reaching that conclusion, the Board considered whether alternatives to a residency condition, such as the use of electronicmonitoring, would be sufficient and decided that they were not viable given Mr. West’s history. His offences were well thought out andinvolved a considerable amount of pre-planning.

Close daily supervision was considered necessary to manage his release into thecommunity. [40] The Appeal Division properly held that the Board’s decision to impose a residency condition was reasonable, well supported andconsistent with the decision-making criteria set out in subsection 133(4.1) of the CCRA. VII. Conclusion [41] Mr. West is now over 70 years old and may be considered less of a threat to public safety than he was in his younger years. He isable to leave the confines of the community correctional centre in which he is required to reside on a daily basis. Mr.

West takesadvantage of those opportunities to spend time with his daughters and grandchildren who reside in the Halifax area. The intent ofstatutory release and the conditions which may be imposed by the Board is to provide offenders with structure and support before theirsentences expire to assist them to successfully reintegrate into the community. A residency requirement may provide such a structuredenvironment. I note that the Board was prepared to consider additional leave privileges to the homes of positive community supporterssuch as members of his family.

It may be that the Board will consider in the coming months that the residency requirement can berelaxed prior to the expiry of Mr. West’s sentences. [42] Mr. West is entitled to maintain his claims of innocence in relation to the index offences. But as I suggested at the close of thehearing, he may want to consider whether seeking a remedy for those claims is a worthwhile use of his time given his age. [43] Based on the evidence and submissions before the Court on this application I am not prepared to interfere with the Board andAppeal Division decisions. This application will therefore be dismissed.

VIII. Costs [ 44 ] While costs normally follow the cause, as the Respondent has not requested costs if the application is dismissed none will be awarded. JUDGMENT IN T-692-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No costs are awarded. “Richard G. Mosley” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-672-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: WILLIAM FENWICK WEST v PAROLE BOARD OF CANADA APPEAL DIVISION AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA DATE OF HEARING: January 15, 2020 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: MOSLEY J.

DATED: january 24, 2020 APPEARANCES : William Fenwick West For The Applicant (Self-represented litigant) Amy Smeltzer For The RespondentS SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Attorney General of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia For The RespondentS