The applicant seeks a declaration that ss. 31-37 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, which
permit the Correctional Service of Canada to remove an inmate
from the general population of inmates in a penitentiary for
a non-disciplinary reason ( i.e., administratively segregate an
inmate), are invalid because they infringe ss. 7, 11(h) and 12 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 The respondent presents isolating inmates in administrative segregation as an appropriate last resort for managing a difficult and dangerous prison population. The respondent
maintains that instances where administrative segregation may
have been applied in a manner that violated an individual’s
rights are cases of maladministration and do not demonstrate
that the current legislative regime cannot be administered
 This application concerns only administrative segregation.
Administrative segregation is distinct from segregation for a disciplinary infraction ( i.e., disciplinary segregation). Disciplinary
segregation is a sanction imposed at the end of a disciplinary
proceeding for a serious offence. It results from a decision made
by an independent chairperson. It is time limited and may
not exceed 30 days for a single offence or 45 days for multiple
offences. It is not the subject of this application.
 This proceeding was started by the Corporation of the
Canadian Association of Civil Liberties and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies on January 27, 2015.
 The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies filed
a notice of discontinuance of its role as an applicant in this proceeding on February 29, 2016. As a result, the style of cause has
been amended on consent to reflect that it is no longer a party.
 The remaining applicant is the Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a national organization established in 1964 to protect and promote respect for and observance
of fundamental human rights and civil liberties.
 After the close of arguments, the applicant requested leave
to submit four quotations from a joint report of the Correctional
Investigator of Canada and the Ontario Child Advocate, released
October 3, 2017. The respondent objected to the admission of the
report both because the record was closed and because it was
 I agree with the respondent that the original submissions
by the applicant highlight evidence consistent with evidence
already in the record. Given the timing of this evidence, I do not