Jeremy R. Williams Applicant v. Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility c/o The Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondent DECISION Judge: The Honourable Justice Scott C. Norton, 2022 NSSC 159

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Williams v. Central Nova Correctional Facility , 2022 NSSC 159 Date: 20220530 Docket: Hfx. No. 514805 Registry: Halifax Between: Jeremy R. Williams Applicant v. Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility c/o The Attorney General of Nova Scotia Respondent DECISION Judge: The Honourable Justice Scott C. Norton Heard: May 30, 2022 Counsel: Jeremy R. Williams, Applicant Allison Campbell, for the Respondent By the Court (Orally): [ 1 ] Habeas corpus matters, by their very nature, are time sensitive.

For this reason, I believe it is important for all parties to be able to leave today knowing the outcome. [ 2 ] Jeremy Williams is a remanded inmate currently detained at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility (CNSCF, Facility, or the Institution). In the Notice for Habeas Corpus filed by the Applicant on May 11, 2022, the Applicant seeks a writ of habeas corpus against the institution. [ 3 ] At the time of filing his Notice Mr. Williams was in custody pursuant to a Warrant for Remand. He has a long history of interaction with correctional services. From November 2021 to March 2, 2022, Mr.

Williams was in custody at a federal facility. He was transferred to the CNSCF on March 2, 2022 and initially placed in the Health Care Unit in accordance with Covid screening protocols in place at that time. We was also placed on a High Risk Security Protocol (HRSP) after his security risk score was classified as “high”. After completing the Covid protocol Mr. Williams was by court order placed in the Mentally Ill Offender Unit at the East Coast Forensic Hospital from April 6 to April 28, 2022. Upon his return to CNSCF he was placed in the Close Confinement Unit (CCU) due to security concerns.

On April 5, 2022 he was provided with a letter outlining the expectations that the Institution had of him if he were to be placed into a rotation allowing, initially, 2 hours per day out of cells. [ 4 ] On May 5, 2022, Mr. Williams was placed in the North 1 Unit. Due to disciplinary level reports and after adjudication, he was placed in the CCU from May 6 to 13, 2022. On May 13, 2022 Mr. Williams was moved back to N1 on a single cell rotation. Due to restrictions related to Covid and directed by Public Health, as well as security risks relating to Mr. Williams, it has been impossible to provide Mr.

Williams with 2 hours each day out of cells. Mr. Verge testified that although public health restrictions have been dropped for the general public, the CNSCF is deemed a long term care facility and remains subject to significant restrictions. These restriction in turn restrict Mr. William’s ability to shower or have contact with legal counsel or family by telephone as these tasks must be done during the time out of cell. On May 24, 2022 MR. Williams Security Management Plan (SMP) was amended to allow him to be on a two-cell rotation if compatible inmates are available.

Unfortunately, no compatible inmate has been identified. For the same security reasons, the Facility is not able to transfer Mr. Williams to another housing unit. [ 5 ] In his Notice for Habeas Corpus, Mr. Williams alleges that he was held in administrative solitary confinement from March 3 to May 9, 2022 and that this detention was unlawful. [ 6 ] At the Motion for Directions, and again today, the Respondent AGNS acknowledged that Mr. Williams residual liberty was impacted by the SMP. As such, the burden is on the Respondent to justify the lawfulness and reasonableness of the detention.

[ 7 ] No further evidence or written submissions were received in advance of the hearing from Mr. Williams. He testified at the hearing. The Respondent chose not to cross examine him. The Respondent filed affidavit evidence from Richard Verge, Deputy Superintendent of CNSCF. Mr. Verge provided additional viva voce evidence and was cross examined by Mr. Williams. [ 8 ] The law relating to habeas corpus and the standard of review has been stated in numerous cases. I refer to and adopt the

summary provided by Justice Jamieson in Cox v AGNS 2020 NSSC 81 , at paras 24 to 36 . In very short

summary, the burden is on the AGNS to show that the detention of Mr. Williams is lawful and reasonable, and that institution complied with its procedural duties and requirement of fairness. [ 9 ] The evidence of Deputy Superintendent Verge, which I fully accept as truthful and accurate, established that the detention of Mr. Williams on a single cell or two cell rotation was lawful and reasonable and due to Mr.

Williams negative behaviour at CNSCF which included assaulting staff, causing damage to the fire safety/sprinkler system and disobeying direct orders from staff. [ 10 ] It is unfortunate that the directions of Public Health due to Covid-19 significantly impact on the ability of the Facility to provide inmates on N1 with the full 2 hours of meaningful contact outside of cells. Mr. Williams is understandably frustrated that these public health directives negatively impact on his rights.

However, the evidence before me is that the Facility is subject to the authority of Public Health and cannot ignore those directives. [ 11 ] The case authorities in this province repeatedly and consistently recognize that the courts will extend considerable deference to the authority of the detaining facility to manage the day-to-day safety and security and administrative functioning of the facility, on the basis that the management of the facility hold special knowledge and are in a better position to assess and mitigate the risks with respect to prisons. In Ryan v.

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) , 2015 NSSC 286 , Justice Chipman observed at paras. 24 and 25: [24] Earlier I said my view may not matter and that is because of what the law says in respect of other reported cases that have come before this one. Decisions of prison administrators, such as have been made by those at CNSCF, are afforded considerable deference by the Court. The deference is afforded for good reason. In the result, my role as a Supreme Court Justice hearing a habeas corpus application is not to review all of the evidence so as to make a new decision on the evidence.

It is also not my role to determine whether a placement decision such as we have in this case was the correct decision. [25] In making such decisions, prison administrators must take into consideration the safety and security of many stakeholders: the staff, other inmates, the public, and so forth. Prison administrators (here Mr. Keefe, Mr. Fraser and Ms. Dominix) have specific and sometimes special knowledge of the safety concerns. They are in a better position than the Court in assessing and mitigating the risks with respect to prisons. That is why, in part, they are afforded considerable deference.

It is not the Court’s role to second guess. My role is to determine whether the Respondent had the jurisdiction to make the decision and whether that decision was lawful and, as Mr. Eddy has argued, reasonable in the circumstances. [ 12 ] In this case the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Mr. Williams was a threat to the security of CNSCF, its staff and other inmates and the SMP developed for Mr. Williams was reasonable, measured and justified. Mr. Williams is a challenging inmate to manage.

He is assessed with a high security risk due to his history of conduct and his refusal by times or inability by times to comply with facility rules and staff directions. His confinement in the CCU for part of the period under consideration was due to disciplinary action imposed following adjudication in compliance with the facility rules and regulations. That adjudication is not subject to review by this court on a habeas corpus application. [ 13 ] I am satisfied by the evidence that the facility complied with its procedural duties and requirement of fairness. Mr.

Williams was provided with a letter outlining the standard of behaviour required in order for him to be placed on a rotation with other inmates. His placement in a single cell rotation was a result of his own negative behaviour. [ 14 ] In

summary, I am satisfied that the Respondents have met the burden of establishing that the restriction of residual liberty for Mr. Williams was lawful, reasonable and met the duty of fairness. [ 15 ] The application is dismissed without costs to any party. Norton, J.