Law360 Canada (November 29, 2022, 7:27 AM EST) -- Application by Larue for an order of habeas corpus releasing him from a maximum security institution and returning him to a medium security institution. Larue was sentenced to life for first degree murder. He was transferred to Pacific’s Programs Unit and was accepted into Lalem. While in Lalem, Larue was involved in multiple incidents, including being found in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Several interventions were attempted to motivate Larue to change his behaviour. All efforts were unsuccessful. He was placed on a Behavioural Management Plan and again, no change occurred in his behaviour. The Warden and his case management team decided to give him one more chance to reform. Following a security intelligence investigation, corrections staff determined Larue was involved in smuggling illicit drugs into Pacific. Lalem withdrew its support for Larue and he was transferred back into Pacific’s Programs Unit temporarily. The security risks posed by Larue could no longer be managed in Pacific and commenced an involuntary transfer process. The security investigators learned of a threat made by Larue toward the institution’s staff. Larue was immediately transferred to Kent on an emergency involuntary basis. The Warden delivered an oral decision approving both Larue’s involuntary transfer and his reclassification to maximum security. The Warden made the final decision on December 17, 2021, drafted her written reasons the next day, sent them to Kent for delivery to Larue on December 22, 2021, but did not provide him with a copy. Larue claimed his involuntary transfer from Pacific to Kent was procedurally unfair and unlawful and the decision was unreasonable. Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) conceded it erred in not delivering the written reasons to Larue as required by the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR). CSC argued Larue did not take steps to request a copy of the written reasons....