78-year-old inmate’s case against Corrections Canada will draw back curtain on system

Law360 Canada (February 17, 2026, 10:29 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

A country song recorded by Charlie Rich, inspired by the Watergate scandal in the United States, includes the line, “No one knows what goes on behind closed doors.” That could be the theme for some incidents in Canada’s penitentiaries. It has been said that prison walls and fences are more for keeping the public out than for keeping prisoners in. However, from time to time, the public can gain insight into the inner workings of how prisoners are treated when a lawsuit is brought.

Such an action was recently filed in the Federal Court of Canada by Toronto prison law lawyer Jeffrey Hartman of the law firm Lockyer Zaduk Zeeh. The suit seeks $300,000 in damages, plus $150,000 in punitive damages and Charter breaches. The plaintiff is a man we’ll call Mr. H. The statement of claim alleges mistreatment of the 78-year-old inmate. None of the allegations have yet been proven in court.

Mr. H. was convicted of sexual offences in September 2024 and sentenced in January 2025 to 8½ years’ imprisonment. Initially held in Ontario, he was transferred by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) from the Joyceville Assessment Unit (JAU) to Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick in September 2025 for population management reasons.

At the time of his incarceration, CSC knew or ought to have known that Mr. H. was elderly and medically vulnerable, with diabetes, a heart condition, hearing impairment, amputated toes, balance instability, symptoms of dementia, frequent dizziness, incontinence and a high risk of falling (Morse Fall Scale score of 65). He required a walker and adult diapers.

Despite these health concerns, CSC transported him by vehicle approximately 1,308 kilometres over 17 hours without prior notice of the method of transportation. He was shackled in handcuffs and leg irons and placed in a steel compartment without padding. During the trip, he was given minimal food, no insulin and no access to washroom breaks. He was not given adult diapers and later developed a urinary tract infection.

During a stop, Mr. H. fell while attempting to re-enter the vehicle, striking his head on the pavement while restrained. No immediate medical assessment was conducted, and no incident report was filed. CSC later claimed officers had restrained him and that he was uninjured, but another prisoner contradicted this account. Mr. H. subsequently filed multiple inmate requests reporting a head injury, concussion symptoms, wrist abrasions from handcuffs, shoulder and neck pain, dizziness, hallucinations and other injuries.

Medical attention was delayed. A physician eventually noted confusion and ordered a CT scan. The Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) investigated and found significant failures in care, including the following:

• Evidence that the fall caused a serious head injury.
• Visible and unacceptable wrist injuries from restraints.
• Failure to document his need for a walker in the pre-transfer assessment.
• No incident report filed regarding the fall.
• Attempts by CSC staff to blame Mr. H. rather than acknowledge their duty of care.

The OCI also identified systemic failures, serious discrepancies in accounts of the incident and concerns that CSC failed to conduct an individualized assessment of Mr. H.’s vulnerability before transferring him out of Ontario. Despite these findings, CSC officials defended the transfer and downplayed concerns about his vulnerability.

Civil actions against the CSC are relatively rare. Most lawyers do not understand the complexities of Canada’s penal system or are unwilling to invest the time required to secure justice for clients who are often impecunious. When asked why he became involved in this lawsuit, Hartman replied as follows: “The career choices I’ve made afford me the privilege but also the moral responsibility of doing something about the things I do not accept. I do not accept the manner in which CSC treated my client. Its conduct in this case is a complete affront to his basic human dignity. This can’t happen to anyone else.”

Should Hartman be successful in establishing these facts, it would open the door to exposing this serious abuse, which most members of the public would not condone. The damages claimed will certainly not adequately compensate Mr. H. for his mistreatment and indignity. No amount of money could do so. However, the award of damages would prompt “behaviour modification” of the internal processes the CSC uses. It may also set a precedent that will allow the closed CSC door to remain at least partially ajar.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.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.