Failure to ensure that information was reliable denied procedural fairness of accused

Accused was convicted in 2005 and 2006 of breaching two protection orders obtained by his ex-wife . In 2008, accused broke into his ex-wife’s home and committed violent sexual assault on her while she was undergoing treatment for terminal cancer and in weakened physical state. Accused pleaded guilty to breaking and entering and committing aggravated sexual assault, to unlawful confinement, and to wearing disguise with intent. Accused was sentenced to twelve years and ten months imprisonment. Accused was released on day parole on August 13, 2015, and was released on full parole on October 11, 2016. Accused was seen by one of his daughters standing across street from her workplace, in violation of no-contact parole condition. Accused was arrested and Correction Services Canada (CSC) suspended accused’s parole. Parole Board (Board) issued decision revoking accused’s parole. Accused’s appeal with Appeal Division was dismissed. Accused brought application for judicial review of decision. Application granted, and matter referred to another member of Board. While Board was not explicitly obligated to review police report, it was obligated to take into account all relevant information received and ensure that information relied upon was reliable and persuasive. Fact that daughter’s police statement described accused as having red when he had grey hair should have raised reliability concerns regarding daughter’s version of events. Neighbour’s letter gave uncontradicted evidence that accused was at his mother's home at 6:00 pm, which would also preclude him from having attended his daughter's workplace. Board failed to ensure that information relied upon was reliable, thereby resulting in denial of procedural fairness to accused.

DLE v. Canada (Attorney General) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 3250, 2019 CarswellNat 3837, 2019 FC 909, 2019 CF 909, Michael D. Manson J. (F.C.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca