Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Constitutional law — Life, liberty and security — Principles of fundamental justice — Criminal law—Parole — Judgment declaring of no force or effect legislative amendments whose purpose was to eliminate requirement that Parole Board hold oral hearing following suspension, termination or revocation of parole or statutory release — Whether Court of Appeal erred in declaring legislative amendments invalid — Whether Court of Appeal imposed limits on general legal principles recognized by this Court concerning statutory grant of discretion and whether Court of Appeal recognized new principle of fundamental justice contrary to this Court’s teachings — Jobs, Growth and Long term Prosperity Act, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 527 — Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, s. 140(1)(d) – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.

In 2012, the Parliament of Canada enacted the Jobs, Growth and Long term Prosperity Act, S.C. 2012, c. 19. Section 527 of that Act amended s. 140 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20 (“Act”). The effect of the amendment was to eliminate the mandatory oral hearing held by the Parole Board du Canada (“Board”) for reviews following the suspension, termination or revocation of parole or statutory release. The new s. 140(1)(d) of the Act limits the right to such a hearing to cases in which parole is cancelled. However, the Board has the discretion to conduct a review by way of an in-person hearing in any case not referred to in s. 140(1).

Before the amendment in question came into force, s. 140(1)(d) provided for a mandatory hearing where parole was suspended, terminated or revoked unless the offender waived the right to a hearing in writing or refused to attend the hearing.

The Board revoked the day parole of Benoît Way and the parole of Maxime Gariépy (“respondents”). In both cases, the decisions were made on consideration of the file and written representations, without holding a hearing. The respondents filed applications for habeas corpus with the Superior Court and sought a declaratory judgment based, inter alia, on s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.