preventing his transfer. By the time the Federal Court proceedings were over, it was no longer possible to transfer the inmate.
 The courts have previously considered the prison context
and found that the obligations of procedural fairness should not
overly burden or obstruct effective prison administration (
Cardinal, at pp. 654-55, 660 S.C.R.).
 Procedural fairness requirements should be “fully compatible with the concern that the process of prison administration, because of its special nature and exigencies, should not be
unduly burdened or obstructed by the imposition of unreasonable or inappropriate procedural requirements”: Cardinal, at
p. 660 S.C.R. Relatedly in Charkaoui, “The procedures required
to conform to the principles of fundamental justice must reflect
the exigencies of the security context. Yet they cannot be permitted to erode the essence of s. 7” (para. 27).
 Nonetheless, the decision which is being reviewed for
procedural fairness is not the initial decision to place the inmate
in administrative segregation. The obligations of permitting
expedient resolution are lessened because the inmate is already
segregated. Concerns for the security of the penitentiary, other
inmates, interference with disciplinary investigations, or risk of
harm from other inmates identified in Corrections and Conditional Release Act s. 31(3) have been stabilized.
 Overall, this factor limits the extent of a duty of procedural fairness.
The nature and content of the duty of procedural fairness
owed in segregation proceedings
 After considering the Baker factors, I have concluded
that a robust duty of procedural fairness applies to the decision
to maintain an inmate in administrative segregation. This conclusion is consistent with the finding in R. v. Hamm, supra, that
a high degree of procedural fairness is required in involuntary
segregation (para. 67). However, it is always necessary to consider the burden this will place on the operation of correctional
 The legislative context in part is that Parliament
intended that there should be an immediate review of the decision
to admit or maintain an inmate in administrative segregation
because the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and regulations provide for a review, although not a robust one, within five
working days of the decision to segregate. The review is not robust
because the institutional head, whose decision is being reviewed
decides the membership of the reviewing board (Institutional