Segregation Review Board) and the reviewing board can only
make a recommendation to the institutional head.
 The regulations permit the institutional head to designate a staff member who can decide to segregate an inmate.
However, if this occurs, the institutional head must review the
staff member’s decision within one working day. Interestingly,
the Administrative Segregation Handbook for Staff cautions that
it would be a conflict of interest if the delegate was acting as the
institutional head and purported in that capacity to review his
or her decision to segregate. See p. 811 of the respondent’s application record.
 The legislative scheme requires independent reviews in
other contexts. Hearings of serious disciplinary offences require
that panel is chaired by an independent chairperson (Corrections
and Conditional Release Regulations s. 24(1)(a)). Where an inmate files a grievance, there is a requirement that the grievance
can be elevated up the chain of command to a superior.
 Yet despite the handbook’s obvious sensitivity to reviewing your own decision, only the institutional head can confirm or
change his or her decision to segregate. Procedurally, the institutional head is the final institutional decision-maker concerning
decisions to admit to or release an inmate from administrative
segregation during the relevant time. This is an anomaly even
within the context of penitentiary decision making.
 It is a basic principle of our judicial system and legal
process that a decision maker should not sit as a member of
a tribunal hearing an appeal from his or her own decision. See,
for example, s. 132 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c. C.43, first enacted in 1913. In this regard, I appreciate that
the fifth working day review is not an appeal but having regard
to the context set out here I see that as a distinction without
 A procedure which mandates that the institutional head
is both the decision maker and the only person who can vary the
decision ignores the intellectual commitment which a person
makes when publicly deciding and the difficulty anyone has
altering an opinion that has been publicly declared and formally
expressed in writing.
 Because the institutional head is fulfilling roles of both
investigator and adjudicator, if, prior to a review, the institutional head believed administrative segregation was no longer
justified according to the requirements of Corrections and Conditional Release Act s. 31(3), the institutional head would be
required to release the inmate from administrative segregation. The very fact that the inmate remains in administrative