Wilson v. Correctional Services Canada, 2013 NSCA 49

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Wilson v. Correctional Services Canada , 2013 NSCA 49 Date: 20130424 Docket: CA 370532 Registry: Halifax Between: Karl Anthony Wilson Appellant v. Attorney General of Canada representing Correctional Services Canada Respondent Judges: Saunders, Hamilton and Fichaud, JJ.A. Appeal Heard: April 15, 2013, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Held: Appeal dismissed without costs per reasons for judgment of Saunders, J.A.; Hamilton and Fichaud, JJ.A. concurring.

Counsel: Appellant in person Susan Inglis and Sarah Drodge, for the respondent Reasons for Judgment: [ 1 ] This is an appeal from the decision of Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Robert W. Wright sitting in Amherst ( 2011 NSSC 143 ). Mr. Wilson was represented by counsel at that hearing although he is acting for himself in this Court. [ 2 ] During his submissions Mr. Wilson advised that he is no longer incarcerated but is currently residing in New Brunswick, bound by the terms of his statutory release. His sentence will expire in July, 2014.

This would seem to raise an issue of mootness, the principles of which the appellant asks us not to strictly apply, asserting that his liberty is still subject to the terms of his statutory release and that his case “raises important issues of public interest in prisoner rights”. In response the Crown does not rely upon the doctrine of mootness to dispose of this appeal. Neither will I. [ 3 ] The substance of this appeal can be briefly stated.

[ 4 ] Justice Wright dismissed the appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid. [ 5 ] In simple terms, the appellant sought to challenge the way in which Correctional Services Canada, the National Parole Board, and the Board’s Appeal Division had handled his file; in particular, his complaint that he had been denied parole because of information in his file which he said was false and had never been proved. [ 6 ] The appellant has sought redress on a number of fronts including institutional appeals and multi-level grievances attempting to have the impugned information purged from his file, or at least corrected, especially reports naming him as an active player in the prison drug trade.

Mr. Wilson also complained that his case management team had chosen to ignore the agreed statement of facts introduced at his sentencing hearing on October 16, 2007 when he pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter (for which he was sentenced to a term of 6 years and 3 months), preferring instead to rely on the police version of events. [ 7 ] After carefully reviewing the circumstances of the case, the relevant legislation, and the leading jurisprudence on the subject, Justice Wright exercised his discretion by declining to consider Mr. Wilson’s application.

The judge reasoned: [43] I recognize that the "complete, comprehensive and expert procedure for review of an administrative decision" exception as set out in May pertains to the statutory parole review regime set out in the CCRA. However, crowned with that is the right of judicial review to the Federal Court which has the jurisdiction to exercise judicial oversight of NBP decisions pursuant to the Federal Courts Act .

Together, they form a complete and comprehensive statutory framework ideally suited to adjudicate on parole matters from start to finish. [44] Moreover, although labelled a habeas corpus application, this matter has, in substance, many hallmarks of a judicial review application where the applicant seeks to set aside the decision of an independent federal tribunal. Indeed, counsel for Mr. Wilson has submitted in his brief that this application entails a review of the NBP Appeal Division's decision on the standards of reasonableness or correctness, depending upon the issue involved, as prescribed in Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick , 2008 SCC 9 . [45] As earlier stated, the clear legislative intent in the Federal Courts Act was to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal Court when it comes to judicial review applications from such federal bodies. It therefore comes as no surprise that there are seemingly no reported cases to be found in a situation where a provincial superior court has assumed jurisdiction on a habeas corpus application from a decision of the NBP Appeal Division denying parole.

Having regard to the language of the judgments above referred to, I am not persuaded that the present application ought to be the first such case. [46] I therefore decline to exercise this court's habeas corpus jurisdiction and Mr.

Wilson's application is accordingly dismissed. [ 8 ] In his Notice of Appeal the appellant seeks the following relief: … the court should allow the appeal and … order Corrections Service Canada (sic) and the Parole Board of Canada to use all relevant reliable and persuasive information to release the applicant to the least restrictive sanction of liberty that is appropriate in the circumstances also this matter be remitted to a different constituted panel of the Parole Board of Canada for re-determination on a expedited basis in accordance with statutory provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. … the Parole Board of Canada grant full parole release of the applicant … [ 9 ] Under his listed grounds the appellant says the Chambers judge erred by refusing to exercise jurisdiction, but does not say how or why.

He claims a variety of Charter breaches vaguely characterized as “unlawful deprivation of liberty”, “procedural fairness”, “natural justice”, and a “failure to recognize a decision … that is so unreasonable on its face, which results in a loss of jurisdiction such that the decision is unlawful”. [ 10 ] During his submissions in this Court Mr. Wilson contended that various appeal courts in Canada had misinterpreted and misapplied binding authority from the Supreme Court of Canada and that Wright, J. had erred by applying, in effect, “bad law”.

In the appellant’s submission, the Federal Court was ill-equipped to probe the alleged failings, Charter violations, and absence of proof when his case and requests for parole were improperly considered and mishandled by the National Parole Board and later, its Appeal Committee. As he sees it, the Federal Court only reviews “for procedural fairness and policy” and cannot adequately explore the serious failings in his case.

He advised that he is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the Federal Court of Appeal’s dismissal of his appeal from the Federal Court’s judicial review of the handling of his case within the institution. [ 11 ] Respectfully, this long series of complaints has nothing to do with the single issue in this appeal, that being, whether the Chambers judge erred in the application of his discretion by declining to entertain Mr. Wilson’s request for habeas corpus because he concluded that the Federal Courts Act , R.S.C. 1985, c.

F-7, conferred exclusive, original jurisdiction on the Federal Court to exercise judicial oversight over decisions reached by the National Parole Board and the Board’s Appeal Division. We see no error in the manner in which Justice Wright exercised his discretion. [ 12 ] In

summary Mr .Wilson expresses dissatisfaction with the position adopted by the Chambers judge. However, he has failed to identify any error in Justice Wright’s reasons or order. He simply rehashes the very same arguments made in the court below and asks us to substitute our discretion for his. Respectfully, that is not our role. [ 13 ] We see no basis to intervene. We are unanimously of the view that the appeal ought to be dismissed. [ 14 ] The Crown asks for costs. Notwithstanding Ms. Drodge’s able submissions on behalf of the Crown, we are not persuaded that this is an appropriate case to consider imposing costs against the appellant.

Saunders, J.A. Concurred in: Hamilton, J.A. Fichaud, J.A. NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Wilson v. Correctional Services Canada , 2013 NSCA 49 Date: 20130424 Docket: CA 370532 Registry: Halifax Between: Karl Anthony Wilson Appellant v. Attorney General of Canada representing Correctional Services Canada Respondent Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice Jamie W.S. Saunders Appeal Heard: April 15, 2013 Subject: Parole. Habeas Corpus with Certiorari in aid. Procedural Fairness. Jurisdiction. Alleged Charter Violations. Federal Courts Act , R.S.C. 1985., c. F-7. Costs.

Summary: The appellant sought to challenge the way in which Correctional Services Canada, the National Parole Board, and the Board’s Appeal Division had handled his file; in particular, his complaint that he had been denied parole because of information in his file which he said was false and had never been proved. He applied in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court for a writ of

habeas corpus with certiorari in aid. The motions judge exercised his discretion by declining to consider the application, reasoning that the Federal Courts Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 conferred exclusive, original jurisdiction on the Federal Court to exercise judicial oversight over decisions reached by the National Parole Board and the Board’s Appeal Division. He appealed to this Court claiming a variety of vaguely characterized Charter breaches, and complaining that the Federal Court’s mandate was limited to “procedural fairness and policy” and was poorly equipped to probe the serious mishandling of his case.

Held: Appeal dismissed. The motions judge did not err in the exercise of his discretion when declining to hear the application. This was not a proper case to consider imposing costs against the appellant. This information sheet does not form part of the court ’ s judgment. Quotes must be from the judgment, not this cover sheet. The full court judgment consists of 5 pages.