Law360 Canada (May 14, 2026, 9:56 AM EDT) --

Michael Crowley

During my more than 20 years as a member of the parole board, it was normal (not required) that after a hearing had ended (no further questions from the panel members), the chair of that panel would ask the parole officer who had presented the case whether they had any comments that flowed from the hearing process.

This was not seen as an invitation to provide new information but offered an opportunity to advise the board members about any relevant observations about the individual’s presentation. Usually, the officers did not have any comments, but sometimes they suggested that they had found the individual to be less articulate than they normally were regarding the crimes they committed or what they had learned through programming or counselling.

For example, if the offender was normally able to openly discuss their offending or showed that they had acquired useful skills from programming they had completed but was unable to do so at a hearing, it was helpful to have a parole officer let us know. In that circumstance I might have asked the individual whether they agreed, and then to explore why that might be the case. In my opinion we always had to be sensitive to the notion that being inarticulate at a hearing was not a risk factor. In fact, we needed to be more cautious not to be “sold” by an individual simply because they were glib or extremely articulate. Indeed, we had to assess changes in behaviour, not verbal skills.

But lately, I have been advised by parole officers with whom I have contact, or through my own observations of parole hearings, that this previous practice is no longer occurring. Board members generally no longer ask parole officers for their comments following hearings, and parole officers are concerned by this change. They feel that their input is no longer valued by the board, and they wonder if they even need to stay for a hearing after they provide their opening statement.

In only one instance during my career did a parole officer, when asked, provided new information, and that was when she said she wanted the board to know that the offender had been inappropriate with her during the previous week. Clearly this was new information and should have been provided prior to the hearing starting, ideally through an addendum to the Assessment for Decision prepared by that parole officer. This would have brought that allegation to the attention of the members and provided an opportunity to the inmate to refute it, if he agreed to waive the 15-day requirement. If not, then the board likely would have adjourned the hearing so he would be able to prepare for the issue to be discussed.

In that case, I said the board would not consider the information, and that it would not be part of the board’s risk assessment.

In my opinion, and based on the board’s previous positions, new information is factual information that was not before the board at the time of its decision and could be considered serious enough that it could reasonably affect the risk assessment or outcome.

In those instances in which a parole officer provides comments regarding the inmate’s presentation during a hearing, this would (in my view) be characterized as an opinion or interpretation of the information (or evidence) already before the board. It is important to keep in mind that the board members had already been aware of the facts or evidence presented during the hearing or in the offender’s file.

The parole officer’s comments, in this circumstance, should be more accurately seen as a professional opinion on credibility or insight. It is not new information.

I think the current concern about new information at the end of a hearing is that it will be negative and consequently “skew” the decision to be negative. But the opposite may equally be true. That is, if a parole officer who knows their clients well forms the belief that the offender was unusually inarticulate about matters they had previously discussed, not being able to provide this information (even if it is an opinion rather than factual) would unfairly penalize the inmate and negatively affect the board’s risk analysis.

Indeed, I am aware of a case that went to the appeals division of the board for a review. In this instance, the parole officer (PO) apparently provided information that the board might have benefited from, even though it was based on the PO’s opinion about the offender’s presentation and their analysis as to how well the individual had done in understanding their criminogenic risk factors and what plans they had made to avoid similar behaviour in the future. This was positive information and relevant, in my view. But the board did not give the PO’s submissions any weight, nor did it explain in its decision why they did not take this into account or how it was considered in arriving at a decision.

When might a parole officer’s comments constitute new information? An example would be the case from my own experience cited above. Or if a parole officer said they had learned of a new institutional charge that was not in the file and realized, at the end of the hearing, that the board had not confronted the inmate about it. Perhaps more likely would be an instance in which a parole officer told the board something like, “A month ago he told me he ended his relationship with his ex-girlfriend, but today he told the board their relationship had never broken off.” If the statement that he had ended the relationship was not in the Assessment for Decision (A4D), it would be considered new information.

In another example from my own experiences, a parole officer told us at the outset of a hearing that the inmate had lost his job in the institution and had been kicked out of school. This was new information and should have been contained in an addendum to the A4D. In that instance, I asked the PO if the halfway house that had supported him was aware of this new information and whether they still supported him. Her reply was that she had not contacted them with the information. So we adjourned the hearing and required that she make the required contact and put that in an addendum. We rescheduled the hearing.

On the other hand, if a parole officer said something like, “He didn’t take responsibility when asked about the index offence,” this would not be new information because the board members had observed the same exchange during the hearing.

New information, in my view, should be something factual that was not available prior to the hearing and relevant to the assessment of risk. It is not an individual’s interpretation of facts already available or the quality or accuracy of an inmate’s presentation during a hearing.

The concerns voiced by parole officers relate both to pre-release and post-release decisions. Post-release decisions, taken after an individual has been suspended, seem to be most contentious from the view of community parole officers. After a community parole officer presents their information, they observe the suspended individual respond to the board members’ questions. If a parole officer in this instance believes the offender is not being truthful about relevant facts, they currently have no opportunity to advise the board member of any discrepancies they have observed. In turn, in my opinion, this could easily lead to a lack of accurate analysis of the risk posed by the offender.

To conclude, I believe that the board needs to routinely return to its previous policy of asking for parole officer comments at the end of hearings. Parole officers should be reminded as to what would constitute new information and trained to refrain from providing this when asked for comments. Board members would also benefit from additional training in this area, so they will have all relevant information in order to accurately analyze or assess the current risk posed by the offender if they were to be released to the community.

Michael Crowley has a BA from Syracuse University. He spent more than 40 years in various positions within the criminal justice system in Canada. Before retiring, Crowley was a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him at CrowleyMichael167@gmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.