ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: CR-15-10-MO

DATE: 20150807

BETWEEN:

Dirk Young
Applicant

– and –

The Attorney General of Canada
Respondent

Simon Borys, for the Applicant

Jim Kapches, for the Respondent

HEARD: June 17, 2015 with written submissions received by July 15, 2015

ENDORSEMENT

McISAAC J.

[1] In my view, this application succeeds on the basis of the decision challenged having been made unreasonably. That determination which is dated November 21, 2014, downgrades the applicant’s Offender Security Level from minimum to medium. It acknowledges that his Security Reclassification Scale was disputed by the inmate’s Case Management Team because the number of “recorded incidents” had been somewhat inflated so as to generate an artificially high outcome. This had the effect of placing him in the medium security category. However, despite that acknowledgement, neither the Manager of Assessment Intervention nor the Warden made any attempt to come to grips with those observations.

[2] This is not a situation where different levels in the institutional assessment procedure have arrived at different interpretations as to an innocent explanation for an apparent infringement of applicable rules in the correctional environment: see Yang v. Millhaven Institution (Warden), 2014 ONSC 7067. It involves an alleged arbitrary calculation related to the process of the applicant’s security reclassification and transfer out of a minimum security facility which impacts significantly on his parole eligibility status. In the result, I agree with the applicant that this failure resulted in a final determination that lacked “justification, transparency and intelligibility”: see Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para. 73. I am unable to determine why this decision was made nor can I assess whether this conclusion is one within the range of acceptable outcomes: see Emonts v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONSC 852 at para. 48. Accordingly, the respondent has failed to satisfy me that the transfer herein was reasonable and it cannot stand.

[3] In the result, the application is granted and the applicant is ordered forthwith returned to a minimum security facility. I am prepared to consider both sides brief written submissions as to costs, those of the applicant to be delivered to my office in Barrie within 15 days of the release of this ruling and those of the respondent, 15 days thereafter.

McISAAC J.

Released: August 7, 2015