 |
| Michael Crowley |
In general, standard conditions require individuals to comply with certain restrictions, such as reporting to a parole supervisor, remaining in Canada at all times, obeying the law and informing their supervisor if they have been arrested or questioned by police. Standard conditions also require the individual to immediately notify their parole supervisor of any change to their financial or domestic circumstances, any changes to their address or employment, or any other change that might reasonably be expected to affect their ability to comply with any conditions of parole or statutory release.
These conditions apply equally to everyone and are generic, not specific to the kinds of issues that appear to have had an impact on the individual’s criminal behaviour that led to their incarceration. In general, these are referred to as criminogenic risk factors.
Consequently, the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations also give the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) the authority to impose “any conditions on the parole, statutory release, or unescorted temporary absence that it considers reasonable and necessary to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender” (CCRA S 133(3).
Special conditions should be clearly stated and must be enforceable, and should only address the risk factors that the individual might otherwise pose when released to the community.
It is also key to note that any condition must be both reasonable and necessary. It is also noteworthy that any decision of the Board, including the imposition and wording of Special Conditions is appealable to the Board’s Appeal Division.
The wording for special conditions is not set out in legislation because of the their unique nature.
Typical special conditions prohibit certain behaviours, or require the individual to engage in certain activities.
Therefore, it is often the case that an individual is prohibited from consuming drugs or alcohol, or from entering bars. The individual could be prohibited from gambling or entering casinos, if doing so in the past has led to criminal behaviour. Offenders with a history of fraud or similar activities could be prohibited from having access to the financial information of anyone, or from owning or managing a business. If the individual has a history of domestic violence, it is likely that they will be required to notify their parole supervisor about any new relationships. In extreme cases, they could be required to notify their supervisor of any attempts to enter into a relationship.
Sex offenders, particularly those whose victims have been children, may have restrictions placed on their activities by judges at time of sentence. But the Board may also impose a range of conditions so that their access to potential victims is severely restricted.
In addition to restrictive conditions, the Board may also require that an individual participate in counseling while in the community. This could be psychological or psychiatric counseling, substance abuse counseling or participation in a treatment program or financial counseling (as examples). There are other programs that address risk factors, often operated through CSC, that an individual could be required to attend. Finally, there may be a requirement that they take medication as directed by a physician.
In many cases there are victims of crimes that have concerns about their safety. In those cases, the board may impose conditions prohibiting any form of contact, or restricting access to certain geographic areas because of the proximity to known victims.
Finally, the board may require that the individual reside at a specific residence (such as a halfway house or psychiatric facility) while on statutory release. The test for the imposition of this condition is specific and will be addressed in another article.
During my 21 years as a member of the Parole Board I reviewed thousands of cases and imposed thousands of conditions. I also sat as a member of the Appeal Division on occasion and reviewed conditions that had been appealed.
In my opinion, the board imposes too many special conditions.
It is my belief that the role of parole or parole supervision is to not only monitor individuals but to encourage or enhance the ability of those individuals to change their behaviour and to lead pro-social lives. This is not an easy task and requires significant skills and commitment on the part of parole supervisors. There are no less than 14 standard conditions that are automatically imposed. The potential number of special conditions that can be imposed more than doubles that number. That means, in my view, that a parole supervisor is likely having to spend most of an interview or supervision session simply going through all those conditions in order to assess whether each is being complied with. That leaves precious little time for the building of a relationship or a meaningful attempt at changing behaviour.
I also believe that parole supervisors don’t utilize the authority that they have without the need for special conditions.
All too often, the board imposes a financial disclosure condition on a person who has a history of illicit drug sales. This requires documented information regarding income, banking, debts etc. But in my experience, very few (if any) drug dealers put their money into a bank account, investment or the purchase of real property. Instead, a parole supervisor can simply require that the individual report any change in financial circumstances (standard condition). And even then a parole supervisor would likely only exercise that authority if they observe some new, significant purchase. The standard condition also allows a parole supervisor to require evidence of payroll information.
I think the key phrase in legislation is the requirement that the condition be both “reasonable and necessary” to both manage risk and assist in reintegration. So the test would be whether the risk would increase significantly if the condition were not in place.
Michael Crowley has a BA from Syracuse University. He spent more than 40 years in various positions within the criminal justice system in Canada. Before retiring Crowley had been a member of the Parole Board of Canada for 21 years. Contact him via CrowleyMichael167@gmail.com
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.