Meizer v Chief Executive, Dept of Corrective Services

Meizer, a prisoner, applied for judicial review of a decision to suspend him from a prison work program following allegations that he made derogatory comments to prison visitors. The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrective Services and other respondents sought to have the proceeding struck out. They argued that the decision challenged was not one to which the Judicial Review Act applied. If the Act did apply, they contended that the grounds of review were limited to bad faith, which was not evidenced, and that the applicant had been treated fairly procedurally. The decision was a managerial one in a prison setting, reasonably open on the merits, and one in which considerable reticence should be exercised on judicial review.

The court had to decide whether the decision to suspend Meizer from the work program was subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act. The respondents contended that the decision was not a reviewable decision as it did not fall under the ambit of the Act. They further argued that even if the Act applied, the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for review, and the decision was a managerial one that should not be subject to judicial scrutiny.

The court found that the decision to suspend Meizer from the work program was not a reviewable decision under the Judicial Review Act. It held that the decision was a managerial one, reasonably open on the merits, and one in which considerable judicial reticence should be exercised. The court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any sufficient grounds for review, and the decision was an unremarkable instance of a prison managerial decision. The court struck out the application for statutory order for review and ordered the respondents to indemnify the applicant for his costs properly incurred in the review application in respect of the respondents' application under section 48 of the Judicial Review Act.