 |
| John L. Hill |
Delay, of course, is a serious matter since the Federal Court of Canada will likely toss out any application for judicial review of an administrative decision impacting an inmate until the inmate has exhausted all internal remedies, i.e., grieved the perceived mistreatment to the third level.
The grievance system was aimed at providing a more civilized method for prisoners to complain of unjust treatment than had been in place and resulting in the 1971 Kingston Penitentiary riot. Now, an inmate can make a complaint at the institutional level and if no resolution can be reached, the grievance can be advanced to the regional level. Failure at this level may result in the matter advancing for review at the national headquarters of the Correctional Service. Only after failure at the third level could judicial review be sought in the Federal Court.
Timelines in the policies governing the grievance system establish that complaints should receive a response within 15 to 25 days depending on the issue. As the CBC reported, that is not the case. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has reported that between April 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021, about 37 per cent of the grievances were answered within the timelines set out in the commissioner’s directives. This is despite the fact that the real numbers of inmate complaints have declined in the period.
CSC attributes the tardiness to increased difficulty in collection and analysis of data and most recently on difficulties associated with COVID-19 restraints.
One might have sympathy with administrators working under difficult conditions if it were not for the fact that another CBC report dealt with the same issue. Maureen Brosnahan, reporting for CBC news, also focused on the issue of failure to deal with inmate grievances in a timely fashion. Her report was dated Aug. 7, 2012. The Brosnahan article dealt with the case of British Columbia inmate Michael Spidel (Spidel v. Canada (Attorney-General) 2011 FC 988). In that judgment, Federal Court Justice Anne Mactavish blasted the Correctional Service and found CSC showed a systemic problem of delayed and incomplete responses to inmate concerns.
There are many issues where an effective grievance system could be used as a safety valve to defuse violence from aggrieved prisoners: Issues such as staff harassment, improper security classifications and problems with visits or transfers. If issues could be dealt with quickly and fairly without reprisals on the complainant, there would be less incentive to act out frustrations, perhaps in a violent manner.
In a letter written by Canadian Prison Law Association (CPLA) president Tom Engel to Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino, the CPLA noted excessive delays in resolving inmate grievances as a matter worthy of discussion between the CPLA and the minister. Engel cites the problem as outlined in the 2017-2018 annual report of the Correctional Investigator and concludes, “… those in prison report their efforts to address their correctional plans are compromised by mistreatment for which there is no accessible solution. Too often the grievance system, rather than being a means of addressing problems within an institution, is an impediment to redress.”
The mandate letter given to Canada’s minister of public safety repeats the need to ensure our penitentiaries are safe and humane environments and that work to ensure rehabilitation and public safety. Criticism of how Canada’s prison grievance system operates have been ongoing for decades. It’s time to address the problem in a meaningful way. After all, justice delayed is justice denied.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.