In the QPLC\u2019s most successful case to date, Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General)<\/em>, the clinic took on the Parole Board of Canada over the lawfulness of its national policy to stop conducting parole reviews for dangerous offenders every two years, as required by the Criminal Code. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act had been amended to allow for a five year review period, which was what the PBC was following instead of the Criminal Code\u2019s guideline \u2014 and which \u201cbasically any theory of statutory interpretation\u201d would conclude was not justifiable, Quick notes.<\/p>\n The clinic tried to get the parole board to change its policy simply by reaching out to them, but Quick says they were ignored until they brought the case in Federal Court to compel the PBC to apply the Criminal Code provision. Initially, a motion was brought to allow an unrepresented inmate\u2019s case on the same issue to proceed first but Quick says they opposed that on the grounds that it \u201cwouldn\u2019t be fair to have the issue considered solely with an unsophisticated, unrepresented party.\u201d The court agreed and rejected the motion to stay, and the clinic\u2019s motion moved forward. <\/p>\n At the point that the government\u2019s responding submissions were due, the Department of Justice contacted the clinic to concede the point, which meant there was no formal court ruling on the issue. But the department agreed in writing to abide by the Criminal Code and review every two years, and also provided a letter about the revised policy that could be distributed to the prisons. The Dorsey <\/em>file began in the fall of 2016 and was resolved on consent in June 2017.<\/p>\n \u201cFor dangerous offenders, this is particularly important because it\u2019s really their only way out of jail and they have a much lower rate of receiving parole than people who have life sentences,\u201d Quick says. <\/p>\n He adds it also helps for these inmates to appear before the board regularly not only to make sure they\u2019re released when appropriate, but also because Correctional Services of Canada is \u201cmore careful about managing people\u2019s files\u201d \u2014 such as by ensuring they are getting the rehabilitative programming they require \u2014 if there is a parole board hearing coming up where their management of the file might be an issue. <\/p>\n \u201cThe Supreme Court has said the parole board has a special obligation to dangerous offenders to ensure treatment needs are being met and they\u2019re not just warehoused,\u201d Quick says. <\/p>\n Quick, who joined the clinic in October 2016, says he saw the staff lawyer position as \u201can opportunity to look at the big picture of issues facing federal prisoners in Ontario and think and act strategically.\u201d <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span>\u201cI was excited about the opportunity to focus my efforts on the narrower area of prison law and gain real expertise in that,\u201d he says. \u201cEven more than that, I was excited about having the privilege to look at an area of law and make strategic decisions about bringing test cases.\u201d <\/p>\n Prior to his role at the QPLC, Quick spent four years as a criminal lawyer in private practice in Kingston where he practiced a lot of correctional law \u2014 mostly parole. Before that, he worked at a social justice civil litigation firm in Toronto for three years.<\/p>\n Quick, who graduated from Queen\u2019s Law in 2009, notes that in private practice, you \u201cget the cases that walk through the door and you can do a great job on them \u2014 but the ones you get are the ones that come in.\u201d The clinic, which has upwards of 200 case files at any given time, provides the opportunity to \u201clook at the state of law and correctional practices in a much broader and more systemic way.\u201d <\/p>\n Usually only government has the privilege of picking through a wide range of files, finding the appropriate test-case litigation and creating the record to bring the issue in front of a court, Quick explains. Now he too has the ability to identify issues of concern and think strategically about which case to bring forward at what time. He notes the litigation mandate was \u201cabsolutely\u201d a large part of his reason for returning to his alma mater to work with the clinic.<\/p>\n The clinic\u2019s approach seems to be working well \u2014 it has handled eight other judicial review cases involving Institutional Disciplinary Courts since October 2016. Five were allowed by the Federal Court on consent, with costs. Of the three others that went to a hearing, two resulted in Federal Court decisions in favour of the QPLC\u2019s clients and the remaining decision is currently under appeal.<\/p>\n This success is due in no small part to the students who take the course, whose \u201ceyes are opened to a whole different world,\u201d Quick says, adding they meet with federal prisoners, learn their back stories, see the conditions they\u2019re living in and then get to advocate on behalf of these people that are usually feared \u2014 or even despised \u2014 by other members of society.<\/p>\n The students realize the prisoners \u201care real human beings deserving of respect and dignity,\u201d a process Quick says is a joy to see happen with each new group of law students. <\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m constantly amazed by their energy and enthusiasm and their compassion for the prisoners,\u201d he says. \u201cI\u2019ve been very impressed by the quality of students that participate, and their dedication. The students have been enthusiastic about the litigation mandate of the clinic and we are in the process of building that aspect of the institution so that we make the most effective use of students and give them the best opportunities for participating in that process.\u201d<\/p>\n The QPLC is unique in Canada as the only student legal clinic, with Prisoners\u2019 Legal Services operating out of the West Coast Prison Justice Society in Burnaby, British Columbia, serving as the country\u2019s only other prisoner clinic. The Queen\u2019s clinic offers law students a \u201ctip-to-tail experience of administrative law\u201d and seems to be a popular option, Quick says.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve talked to some of my students and know there are at least some who choose Queen\u2019s because of prison law,\u201d he adds. <\/p>\n There have also been discussions at the director level with interested parties from across Canada, Quick notes. People in Nova Scotia that have reached out to the clinic, \u201cinvestigating to see if it\u2019s possible to do a similar thing\u201d out there, and Queen\u2019s has also heard from Alberta over the past month where experienced prison lawyers were inquiring about the model.<\/p>\n Quick is focused on moving the clinic and its mandate forward, saying he \u201cdefinitely wants to keep an eye out for national policies and issues of broad systemic import to take on.\u201d <\/p>\n He says one of the things the clinic wants to do is get itself into a position to apply to intervene in appellate and Supreme Court level cases involving prisoner rights. <\/p>\n \u201cWe also want to look at broader constitutional and human rights issues that may involve more complex evidentiary records than the cases we\u2019ve taken on so far,\u201d he adds. \u201cThe goal is to gradually build and expand the clinic\u2019s capacity to take on hard-hitting prison law test cases, so we\u2019re doing that in a careful and gradual and deliberate way.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n As the Queen\u2019s Prison Law Clinic ramps up its mandate to take on more prisoners\u2019 rights test-case litigation, the group already has a significant win under its belt. Staff lawyer Paul Quick says the litigation mandate is relatively new for the clinic \u2014 it\u2019s been in the works over the last few years but \u201creally … <\/p>\n
\n
Source link <\/a>
\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/litigation-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"