The College of Family Physicians of Canada also concluded that solitary confinement can alter brain activity and
result in symptoms within days.
 I accept all this evidence.
 The respondent’s evidence also indicates the importance
of the decision to admit and by implication, to continue segrega-
tion. The Administrative Segregation Handbook for Staff pro-
vides, at p. 16 (p. 813 of the respondent’s application record):
“The seriousness of the decision to admit the inmate in adminis-
trative segregation cannot be overstated.”
 There is no doubt that the decision to place an inmate in
administrative segregation is an important one.
 This third Baker factor weighs heavily in favour of
robust procedural fairness protections.
The legitimate expectations of the person challenging
 The fourth Baker factor is the legitimate expectations of
the person challenging the decision. This involves the extent to
which an official makes representations about the process
that will be followed (Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi (2011),
108 O.R. (3d) 240,  2 S.C.R. 504,  S.C.J. No. 30, 2011
SCC 30, paras. 68-72).
 There is no individual plaintiff in this case. The application is proceeding on the basis that the legislation, and related
policies, are not capable of Charter compliant application. This
factor does not weigh heavily.
Respect for the procedural choices made by the decision maker
 The fifth Baker factor is respect for the procedural choices
made by the decision maker. This factor is concerned with the
decision maker’s expertise in determining procedures that
appropriately balance competing interests (Baker, para. 27). It
has been framed as “the nature of the deference due to the decision maker”: Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village),  2 S.C.R. 650, 
S.C.J. No. 45, 2004 SCC 48, para. 11.
 It is the statutory provisions that are being challenged.
I recognize that Parliament is entitled to deference with respect
to the diverse ways to approach the problem of security in a penitentiary and administrative segregation.
 However, Parliament has provided for a review. Stipulating that the reviewer must be independent of the decision maker
and must have the power to do more than make recommendations