Federal appeal | Parole
Revocation
Application for judicial review of pardon revocation was granted
Accused pleaded guilty to driving with excessive alcohol. As result, Parole Board revoked pardon granted to accused in 2011 for conspiring in 2007 to export pseudoephedrine without export permit on ground that he was no longer of good conduct. Accused’s application for judicial review of Board’s decision, challenging its legality was dismissed. Accused appealed. Appeal allowed. Judge’s decision was annulled, accused’s application for judicial review was granted, and matter was to be referred to Board for reconsideration. Board could not have reasonably concluded that there was convincing evidence that accused ceased to behave well because his behaviour has required intervention of police forces and court for offence under s. 255 of Criminal Code. Board’s conclusion was more surprising when one considered that Board had in its file no indication of any particular circumstances whatsoever regarding police involvement in matter, and that accused pleaded guilty and therefore did not abuse judicial resources. Board did not conduct investigation and did not try to get details about circumstances surrounding commission of offence, to establish whether in fact accused’s behaviour was able to endanger lives of others. Letter inviting accused to comment was not precise enough to let him know he could and/or should provide all explanations of circumstances surrounding commission of offences, as well as his good behaviour during nine previous years. In absence of such information on file, Board could not concluded there existed convincing evidence that accused’s behaviour could be associated with marked disregard for public safety and that he endangered life of public. Board should have conducted particularized analysis of circumstances surrounding commission of offence and any other information related to accused’s lifestyle.
Y. (M.) c. Canada (Procureur général) (June 7, 2016, F.C.A., Johanne Gauthier J.A., A.F. Scott J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-371-14) Decision at 116 W.C.B. (2d) 31 was reversed. 131 W.C.B. (2d) 49.
Application for judicial review of pardon revocation was granted
Accused pleaded guilty to driving with excessive alcohol. As result, Parole Board revoked pardon granted to accused in 2011 for conspiring in 2007 to export pseudoephedrine without export permit on ground that he was no longer of good conduct. Accused’s application for judicial review of Board’s decision, challenging its legality was dismissed. Accused appealed. Appeal allowed. Judge’s decision was annulled, accused’s application for judicial review was granted, and matter was to be referred to Board for reconsideration. Board could not have reasonably concluded that there was convincing evidence that accused ceased to behave well because his behaviour has required intervention of police forces and court for offence under s. 255 of Criminal Code. Board’s conclusion was more surprising when one considered that Board had in its file no indication of any particular circumstances whatsoever regarding police involvement in matter, and that accused pleaded guilty and therefore did not abuse judicial resources. Board did not conduct investigation and did not try to get details about circumstances surrounding commission of offence, to establish whether in fact accused’s behaviour was able to endanger lives of others. Letter inviting accused to comment was not precise enough to let him know he could and/or should provide all explanations of circumstances surrounding commission of offences, as well as his good behaviour during nine previous years. In absence of such information on file, Board could not concluded there existed convincing evidence that accused’s behaviour could be associated with marked disregard for public safety and that he endangered life of public. Board should have conducted particularized analysis of circumstances surrounding commission of offence and any other information related to accused’s lifestyle.
Y. (M.) c. Canada (Procureur général) (June 7, 2016, F.C.A., Johanne Gauthier J.A., A.F. Scott J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-371-14) Decision at 116 W.C.B. (2d) 31 was reversed. 131 W.C.B. (2d) 49.
