Canada policies and in so doing violate an inmate’s Charter
rights do not prove that the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act is incapable of constitutional administration.
 The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the argument that
a legislative scheme that is open to maladministration should be
struck down in its entirety and found that Parliament is entitled
to assume that its enactments “will be applied constitutionally”
by the public service. See Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium
v. Canada (Minister of Justice),  2 S.C.R. 1120, 
S.C.J. No. 66, 2000 SCC 69, para. 71.
Previous Scrutiny of Administrative Segregation
 Administrative segregation has been subjected to judicial
scrutiny in Canada (e.g., R. v. Hamm,  A.J. No. 803, 2016
ABQB 440, 41 Alta. L.R. (6th) 29; Bacon v. Surrey Pretrial Services Centre,  B.C.J. No. 1080, 2010 BCSC 805, 11 Admin.
L.R. (5th) 1; R. v. Olson (1987), 62 O.R. (2d) 321,  O.J. No.
855 (C.A.), affd  1 S.C.R. 296,  S.C.J. No. 7).
 It has also been subject to various reviews. The Office of
the Correctional Investigator has touched on administrative segregation. Two considerations of administrative segregation
occurred as part of the Coroner’s Inquest Touching the Death of
Ashley Smith (“Ashley Smith Inquest”) completed in 2013 and
the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for
Women in Kingston by the Honourable Louise Arbour completed
in 1996 (“Arbour Commission”).
 The Arbour Commission was established in response to
an incident in the Prison for Women in Kingston. The initial
incident was a violent assault on four correctional officers by
a group of six inmates. The incident destabilized the institution;
correctional officers refused orders from their superiors to
unlock the range and protested, demanding the transfer of the
assailants to another institution. The inmates were left in
administrative segregation for an extended period.
 The Arbour Commission made wide-ranging recommen-
dations on prison administration. Part of the recommendations
were targeted specifically at the practice of segregation. These
recommendations included, at p. 135:
— ending the practice of long-term confinement in administra-
— imposing a time limit on administrative segregation along
the following lines: