 |
| John Hill |
Esther Mailhot, senior media relations adviser for CSC advises, in response to my criticism, that much is being done to speed up the grievance process and to address the delay I criticized in my column.
She writes: “Action has been taken to improve these processes by increasing resources, enhancing collaboration with stakeholders and enhancing accountability measures throughout the resolution process. While current efforts to address complaints and grievances within the required timeframe are yielding positive results, further measures are being taken to build on this important work. For example, we are currently exploring innovative technology and Alternative Dispute Resolution processes, increasing the number of analysts and having a dedicated a team of analysts to work with specific sites to understand and resolve issues raised at the operational site level very quickly. These measures will allow CSC to both increase response time and address grievances much earlier throughout all the three levels of the complaint and grievance process. We continue to build on the positive results that have been realized from these initiatives in our support of an expeditious and effective offender complaint and grievance process.”
I am certain everyone wishes CSC much success in its endeavour to modify the system. The problem is, we’ve heard it all before.
In 2010, David Mullan, emeritus professor of administrative law at Queen’s University, was appointed to study and report on delays in the grievance system and to recommend ways to alleviate them. Key in his findings was that improperly trained staff, doing “little more than [processing] paper,” bogged down the system. He recommended abolition of the second level of the grievance system entirely. More than a decade later, nothing has been done to implement that recommendation.
Mullan also found that in 2008-09, a handful of “frequent users,” i.e., serial grievers accounted for a disproportionate number of complaints filed. It is understandable that only a small number of prisoners had the skills necessary to draft what could be considered a complex legal document.
Nonetheless, Conservative member of Parliament Roxanne James seized on this one issue and was successful in passing private member’s Bill C-293, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (vexatious complaints) shortly after the Mullan report was made public. James ensured Parliament that the amendment to the CCRA would speed the system and prevent a small minority from “submitting complaint after complaint in order to harass a staff member or merely fill their days.” She went on to suggest that, “In some cases it has become somewhat of a hobby or even a game.”
We know from the prisoner rights advocates named in my March 18 piece that the James bill did little to speed the process and that no action has been taken on professor Mullan’s major recommendation to streamline the process.
Perhaps CSC should revisit the Mullan recommendations. Perhaps applications for judicial review in the Federal Court should not be dismissed where the grievance system was employed but remained unresolved outside the timelines in the regulations.
The correctional investigator has been critical of CSC’s delays for years. I congratulate CSC for those efforts Esther Mailhot points out. However, real congratulations would be owed if steps could be taken to answer grievances times within currently established timelines.
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.