treatment of an inmate which is grossly disproportionate to the
safety risk the inmate presents.
 Accordingly, I am not prepared to find that the legislative scheme providing for administrative segregation in the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act is contrary to s. 12 of the
Charter because it does not contain a hard cap on the length of
time that an inmate can be administratively segregated.
 I do not wish to be taken as having concluded that the
application of this legislative scheme could never be grossly disproportionate treatment of a particular inmate. See, for example, Ogiamien v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and
Correctional Services) (2016), 132 O.R. (3d) 176,  O.J. No.
2444, 2016 ONSC 3080 (S.C.J.), not overturned on this point in
 O.J. No. 4401, 2017 ONCA 667.
Conclusion and Remedy
 The fifth working day review fails to provide the procedural safeguards required by the principles of fundamental justice. The use of administrative segregation beyond the fifth
working day is ultra vires a Charter compliant interpretation of
the current legislative provisions. Any continued use of administrative segregation that relies on the fifth working day review
 The appropriate remedy is a declaration that the current
provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
ss. 31-37 do not authorize administrative segregation after the
fifth working day as it does not have sufficient procedural protections to ensure that continued administrative segregation
does not deprive inmates of liberty or security of the person in a
manner inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice.
As declaratory relief, this remedy is consistent with the court’s
response to previous s. 52(1) cases. It is consistent with the
sort of harm that Operation Dismantle Inc. v. Canada, 
1 S.C.R. 441,  S.C.J. No. 22 suggests is properly subject to
declaratory relief (p. 457 S.C.R.).
 The respondent requested that any order to this effect be
stayed for a period of 12 months to allow Parliament a reasonable period to, if it wished to do so, enact an appropriate legislative response. The applicant suggests that in view of the
seriousness of the ongoing and potential Charter breaches to
individuals the declaration of invalidity should not be suspended
for more than six months.
 I accept that a suspended declaration of invalidity is
required. Prisons are dangerous places and the inability to
resort to administrative segregation, without an appropriate