The Baker list is not exhaustive. See Baker v. Canada,
at para. 28.
 Before discussing the procedural requirements, it is
important to note that the decision in question is not the initial
decision to place the inmate in administrative segregation. The
courts have previously held that the institutional head needs
wide discretion to respond quickly by placing an inmate in
administrative segregation (Cardinal v. Kent Institution, 
2 S.C.R. 643,  S.C.J. No. 78, at p. 655 S.C.R.). Rather, the
question is the procedural fairness to which an inmate is entitled on review of that decision by the Segregation Review Board.
The decision being made and the process followed in
 The decision being made is a decision to continue to isolate an inmate from the general inmate population by placing
the inmate in a prison inside a prison.
 The nature of the decision making review process
followed in making this decision suggests a robust requirement
for procedural fairness. The focus is the extent to which the decision making review resembles a trial and the judicial process
(Baker, para. 23; Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19,
 1 S.C.R. 653,  S.C.J. No. 26, at p. 683 S.C.R.).
 The review decision requires a hearing (Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, s. 33(1)(a)). The inmate must be given
three working days’ notice of the hearing and that notice must
include the information the Segregation Review Board will be
considering (Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations,
s. 21(3)(a)). The inmate is generally permitted to attend the
hearing (Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 33(2)) with
counsel. Where the institutional head does not accept a recommendation from the Segregation Review Board to release the
inmate, the institutional head must provide an explanation to
the inmate and provide an opportunity to listen to the inmate’s
response to the decision (Corrections and Conditional Release
Act, s. 34; Cardinal, at pp. 659-60 S.C.R.). To the extent that the
daily visit by the institutional head provides an opportunity
to raise a ground for ending administrative segregation, it provides significant opportunities for reconsideration (Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, s. 36(2)). Finally, the question of
whether maintaining administrative segregation is justified is
governed by strict legal criteria: that there is no reasonable
alternative to administrative segregation and one of the criteria
in Corrections and Conditional Release Act s. 31(3)(a)-(c) (
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, ss. 31 and 32).