provides more robust protection for the s. 7 interests infringed
by the decision to segregate while respecting Parliament’s legislative scheme. Finally, as indicated, stipulating that the decision
maker is immune from a meaningful review is not reasonably
connected to the Parliament’s legislative reason for permitting
The Baker factors are not exhaustive
 It is helpful to focus on the prison context when considering decision making in prisons because the duty of procedural
fairness is flexible and variable; the content of the duty of procedural fairness depends on an appreciation of the context of the
statute and the rights affected. See Baker, at para. 22.
 The context with which the statute is concerned is
 Jay Pyke, the warden of Collins Bay Institution, provided some contextual evidence. Warden Pyke provided evidence
which established that inmates often maintain affiliations with
gangs and criminal organizations, participate in an underground
economy of contraband and illegal commodities, participate in
an unwritten inmate code requiring violent responses to specified conduct, and make and use homemade weapons.
 Warden Pike’s evidence on this point is confirmed by
evidence filed by the applicant. Specifically, the applicant filed
three inmate affidavits in reply to the evidence of Mr. Bruce
Summers of the Correctional Service of Canada. One inmate had
39 criminal convictions and was currently serving a sentence for
first-degree murder; one inmate had an extensive criminal
history and had been declared a dangerous offender; and one
inmate had spent most of his adult life in prison and was currently serving a sentence for manslaughter.
 I accept this evidence. Warden Pike’s evidence established that part of the context for this application is an environment where there is an ever-present possibility of violence.
 The context presented by this application is also complicated because the circumstances of the inmate are not always
straightforward. For example, one of the inmates, whose affidavit was presented to the court, was placed in administrative segregation for his own safety because other inmates objected to his
presence, resulting in a concern that his life was in danger.
Arrangements were made to transfer the inmate to another
institution so that he could be housed outside the segregation
unit in the general prison population. The inmate objected
and obtained an interlocutory order from the Federal Court