detachment and was convicted of manslaughter. Notwithstanding the mandatory minimum sentence required for manslaughter with a firearm, the trial judge imposed a conditional
sentence purporting to grant the accused a constitutional
exemption from the mandatory minimum four-year sentence.
A majority of the Court of Appeal overturned that sentence and
the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused’s appeal of
that decision.
[19] In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada
had occasion to consider the remedial purposes of s. 52(1) and
s. 24(1) of the Charter. The court held that the sections serve different remedial purposes: s. 52(1) provides a remedy for laws
that in purpose or effect violate Charter rights; s. 24(1) provides a personal remedy against unconstitutional government
action and, unlike s. 52(1), can only be invoked by a party
alleging a violation of that party’s own constitutional rights.
See para. 61.
[20] I am not persuaded by the applicant’s submission that
Ferguson is distinguishable on the basis that a Charter violation
had not been established prior to requesting a s. 24(1) remedy.
Establishing a Charter violation is a crucial step in obtaining
a remedy, but it is an entirely separate question from what remedy the applicant is entitled to seek.
[21] The Correctional Service of Canada’s decision to place an
inmate in segregation pursuant to the provisions of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act does not violate this applicant’s constitutional rights.
[22] Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant does not
have standing to ask for a s. 24(1) Charter remedy.
Canada’s Administration of the Scheme Cannot Result in a Declaration of Invalidity
[23] The respondent opposes the applicant’s claim that
ss. 31-37 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act are
invalid because of the Correctional Service of Canada’s administration of those provisions.
[24] I agree with this submission.
[25] The Correctional Service of Canada’s administration of
the statutory scheme is not before the court because even if the
Correctional Service of Canada’s administration of that scheme
is flawless, Canada could not advance that flawless administration as a reason to refuse a declaration of invalidity pursuant to
s. 52(1) of the Charter.
[26] Individual cases of maladministration where Correctional
Service of Canada personnel contravene Correctional Service of
