The applicant, a civil liberties organization, brought a public interest challenge against the administrative segregation provisions (sections 31-37) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, arguing they violated sections 7, 11(h), and 12 of the Charter.
The court found that the applicant had standing to seek a declaration of invalidity under section 52(1) but not a personal remedy under section 24(1).
The court held that the legislative scheme violated section 7 of the Charter because it failed to provide an independent review of the institutional head's decision to maintain an inmate in administrative segregation, which breached the principles of fundamental justice (procedural fairness) and was not saved by section 1.
The court dismissed the claims under section 11(h) and section 12, finding that segregation is not a punishment and that the scheme, if properly applied with consideration for inmates' mental health, does not constitute cruel and unusual treatment.
The court declared the provisions unconstitutional to the extent they authorize segregation beyond five working days without independent review, but suspended the declaration for 12 months.
