In particular, this is the clinically recognized harm to the
inmate’s mental health.
 As harms from administrative segregation develop, the
inmate is being monitored by the Correctional Service of Canada
staff in accordance with current procedures. The applicant did
not convince me that this monitoring is ineffective. While the
applicant challenged Dr. Morgan’s assertion that initial screening, prior to placement in administrative segregation, would be
effective at ensuring inmates that could be harmed were not
admitted to administrative segregation, the applicant did not
challenge his suggestion that ongoing monitoring could be effective. In fact, the applicant specifically put to Dr. Morgan that
ongoing monitoring is important precisely because the initial
screening is imprecise. Nor did the applicant suggest that the
ongoing monitoring of inmates provided in the Correctional
Service of Canada’s policies would be unable to detect deteriorating health.
 I accept that the Correctional Service of Canada can
adequately monitor inmates who are in administrative segregation to identify when an inmate’s physical and mental health
 The Correctional Service of Canada is therefore required
to balance the harms to the inmate caused by continuing administrative segregation against the benefits to safety by maintaining administrative segregation.
 If the benefits to safety are greater than the continued
harm suffered, the institution must consider whether its staff
can comply with Corrections and Conditional Release Act s. 69,
if they keep the inmate in administrative segregation.
 There is a comparative analysis necessary when determining whether the serious permanent observable negative
mental health effects consequent upon prolonged administrative
segregation are grossly disproportionate. This comparative
analysis requires a comparator. The applicant here is not an
inmate but brings this application because it has public interest
standing. Accordingly, the comparator can only be hypothetical.
 I pose the following hypothetical:
— an inmate has been administratively segregated for his or
her protection because there is an incompatible in the pris-
on population and not due to anything the inmate has done;
— the decision to segregate has been made to preserve the
safety of persons working in the penitentiary and inmates