Martineau v. Matsqui Institution (1979), 30 N.R. 119 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board
Indexed As: Martineau v. Matsqui Institution Disciplinary Board
Supreme Court of Canada
Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
December 13, 1979.
Summary:
This case arose out of a prison inmate’s certiorari application to the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, under section 18 of the Federal Court Act to review a decision of the Penitentiary Disciplinary Board. The inmate was punished for a breach of a regulation under the Penitentiary Act. The Trial Division, in a judgment reported [1978] 1 F.C. 312; 22 N.R. 255, held that the Trial Division had jurisdiction to grant an order of certiorari in the matter. The Disciplinary Board appealed. The Federal Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1958] 2 F.C. 637; 22 N.R. 250, allowed the appeal and held that the Trial Division had no jurisdiction to grant an order of certiorari in the matter, because the decision of the Disciplinary Board was not required to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis. The inmate appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the order of the Trial Division that it had jurisdiction to grant an order of certiorari. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board had a duty of fairness, which could be enforced by way of certiorari, notwithstanding that the Board’s decisions were not required to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis.
Dickson, J., of the Supreme Court of Canada, with Laskin, C.J.C., and McIntyre, J., concurring, concurred in the result, but discussed in some length the modern scope of the certiorari remedy and the duty of fairness on administrative bodies. See paragraphs 14 to 69.
Administrative Law – Topic 2143
Natural justice – Administrative decisions or findings – Duty of administrative bodies to act fairly and observe rules of natural justice – The Supreme Court of Canada held that certiorari was available under section 18 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, against a penitentiary disciplinary board, because the board had a duty of fairness in disciplinary proceedings against prisoners.
Administrative Law – Topic 5003
Judicial review – Certiorari – When available to the parties – The Supreme Court of Canada held that certiorari was available under section 18 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10 against a penitentiary disciplinary board, notwithstanding that the board’s decisions were not required to be made on a judicial or quasi-judicial basis.
Cases Noticed:
Martineau and Butters v. Matsqui Institution Inmate Disciplinary Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 118; 14 N.R. 285; 33 C.C.C.(2d) 366, affirming [1976] 2 F.C. 198; 12 N.R. 150, dist. [para. 25].
Howarth v. National Parole Board (1974), 3 N.R. 391; 18 C.C.C.(2d) 385; [1976] 1 S.C.R. 453, appld. [paras. 4, 28, 57].
Bates v. Lord Hailsham, [1972] 3 All E.R. 1019; [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1373, appld. [para. 7].
Nicholson v. Haldimand Norfolk Regional Police Commissioners (1978), 23 N.R. 410; [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311, appld. [paras. 8, 28].
Ex parte Fry, [1954] 2 All E.R. 118, refd to. [para. 10].
Fraser v. Mudge, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1132; [1975] 3 All E.R. 78, consd. [paras. 10, 61].
Attorney General v. Cohen, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 305; 27 N.R. 344, consd. [para. 12].
Magrath v. The Queen (1978), 38 C.C.C.(2d) 67, refd to. [para. 27].
Minister of Manpower and Immigration v. Hardayal (1977), 15 N.R. 396; [1978] 1 S.C.R. 470, 479, appld. [para. 32].
Roper v. Executive of Medical Board of Royal Victoria Hospital, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 62 at 67, refd to. [para. 32].
R. v. Board of Visitors of Hull Prison, Ex parte St. Germain, [1979] 1 All E.R. 701; [1979] 2 W.L.R. 42 (C.A.), rev’g. [1978] 2 W.L.R. 598 (D.C.), folld. [paras. 9, 35, 62].
Coopers and Lybrand v. M.N.R. (1978), 24 N.R. 163; [1979] 1 S.C.R. 495, dist. [para. 38].
R. v. Local Government Board (1882-83), 10 Q.B.D. 309, appld. [para. 39].
Case of Cardiffe Bridge, 1 Salk. 146, consd. [para. 40].
Groenwelt v. Burwell (1700), 1 L.D. Raym. 467, consd. [para. 40].
R. v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Ex. p. Lain, [1967] 2 Q.B. 864, consd. [para. 40].
Liverpool Taxi Owners’ Association, Re, [1972] 2 All E.R. 589, consd. [para. 41].
Ridge v. Baldwin, [1964] A.C. 40, consd. [paras. 42, 62].
R. v. Electricity Commissioners, Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Company (1920), Limited, [1924] 1 K.B. 171 (C.A.), consd. [para. 43].
Schmidt v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, [1949] 2 Ch. 139 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45].
Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne, [1951] A.C. 66 (P.C.), not folld. [para. 48].
R. v. London Borough of Hillington, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd., [1974] 2 All E.R. 643 (Q.B.D.), consd. [para. 49].
R. v. Barnsely Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex parte Hook, [1976] 3 All E.R. 452, consd. [para. 50].
In Re. H.K. (an infant), [1967] 2 Q.B. 617, consd. [para. 51].
Furnell v. Whangarei High Schools Board, [1973] A.C. 660 (P.C.), appld. [para. 52].
Slevarajan v. Race Relations Board, [1976] 1 All E.R. 13 (C.A.), appld. [para. 59].
R. v. Army Council, Ex Parte Ravenscroft, [1917] 2 K.B. 504, dist. [para. 60].
Dawkins v. Lord Rokeby, L.R. 8 Q.B. 255, dist. [para. 60].
Armstrong and Whitehead, Re., [1973] 2 O.R. 495, dist. [para. 60].
Daemar v. Hall, [1978] 2 N.Z.L.R. 594, consd. [para. 63].
R. and Archer v. White, [1956] S.C.R. 154, dist. [para. 63].
R. v. Institutional Head of Beaver Creek Correctional Camp, ex. p. McCaud, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 371, refd to. [para. 63].
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), consd. [para. 65].
Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, [1949] 1 All E.R. 109, appld. [para. 68].
Statutes Noticed:
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, sect. 18, sect. 28(1), sect. 28(3).
Authors and Works Noticed:
Evans (1973), 36 Mod. L. Rev. 93; (1977) 23 McGill L.J. 132 [para. 19, 53].
Fera (1977), 23 McGill L.J. 497; (1979) 11 Ott. L. Rev. 78 [para. 19].
Janisch (1977), 55 Can. Bar. Rev. 576 [para. 19].
Jones (1975), 21 McGill Law Journal 434, 438 [para. 53].
Loughlin (1978), 28 U.T.L.J. 215 [para. 19].
Mullan (1973), 23 U.T.L.J. 14; (1975) 25 U.T.L.J. 281 [para. 19].
Northey, [1974] N.Z.L.J. 133; (1974-5) 6 N.Z. Univ. L. Rev. 59 [para. 19].
Price (1977), 3 Queens L.J. 214 [para. 19].
Sykes and Tracey (1975-6), 10 Melbourne Univ. L. Rev. 564 [para. 19].
Taylor (1972-3), 5 N.Z. Univ. L. Rev. 373; (1974-6) 1 Monash Univ. L. Rev. 258 [para. 19].
Wade, Administrative Law (4th Ed. 1977), pp. 541-542 [para. 46].
Counsel:
B.A. Crane, Q.C., and John Conroy, for the appellant;
T.B. Smith, Q.C., and Henry Mollot, for the respondent.
This case was heard on May 3, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On December 13, 1979, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:
PIGEON, J. – see paragraphs 1 to 13;
DICKSON, J. – see paragraphs 14 to 69.
MARTLAND, RITCHIE, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ., concurred with PIGEON, J.
LASKIN, C.J.C., and McINTYRE, J., concurred with DICKSON, J.
