First, the program I needed, which I was originally told would take about three months, ended up taking six. There were regular delays and gaps that stretched the time, as with everything in prison, but also Correctional Service Canada (CSC) had revised the program to require quite a few more sessions. This meant that all nine of us in the program would have our parole hearings delayed by at least a few months. At one point five of us in the program wrote a letter to the program manager expressing our concerns about these delays. Typically, we never got an answer.
All of this made the question of when to apply for parole very troubling. Legally I could apply soon after the program began, but then I ran the risk of having the institutional parole officer (PO) write a negative report. She told me she could not support my parole until the program was complete. And because of new rules made by the Harper government, a failed parole application meant you had to wait at least a full year before applying again.
On the other hand, if I delayed my parole application until after the program ended, what with three to four months from application to a hearing and then another month or two to get a place in a halfway house, it would bring me to two-thirds of my sentence and my statutory release date, when I would be released anyway.
Meanwhile, other prisoners in my program group were told different stories by their POs. One guy filed his application at the very beginning of the program with the agreement of his PO. In fact each of the five of us were told different things about what we ought to do, something that was intensely frustrating for all of us.
At this point I also decided to hire a parole lawyer. There were a few of them in Kingston and I had heard from other prisoners that they were helpful if only because they made CSC pay more attention to following the legal requirements, something they often fail to do.
At the same time, parole was a main topic of conversation among prisoners, and I was constantly hearing stories, good and bad. One guy was told that his PO would not support his parole because ‘he hadn’t been in prison long enough in her opinion.’ Another guy I knew applied and despite a negative recommendation from his parole officer, was given day parole.
In every letter home I wrote about the latest stories and rumours. For example: “Based on what people who’ve recently gone through it are saying, the hearings are shorter and less confrontational than they used to be — though this does depend on which parole board members one happens to get at any given hearing. Fewer conditions are being imposed, which is excellent.” We also heard informally that the new government was changing the membership of parole boards (which seemed at that point to be made up largely of former police and prison staff), and that could result in more parole being granted. But this was all just rumour or anecdote. As usual we were told nothing by the system. And we already knew we could not trust what our POs told us.
A little later, I was again summoned to see my parole officer, who wanted to know if I was going to go ahead with the parole hearing or defer it further. This time she did not suggest that I wait until the program was over before scheduling my hearing. She had spoken with my program facilitator and told me that according to that person I was “making progress, participating and not just occupying a seat.” But when I talked to the facilitator, she said that she had told my PO that I was doing very well in the program, making excellent progress, and she had no concerns at all about me — quite a different message! It occurred to me that if the facilitator put that in writing to the PO, I could use that at a parole hearing. However, my PO then told me — another new piece of information — that the parole board would postpone my hearing for 60 days if they did not have the complete program report in advance, and that report would not be ready until at least 30 days after the program ended.
This constant uncertainty about when to apply for parole was very hard on me and on my family, as it was for all prisoners. The inability or unwillingness of CSC to have a relatively clear process created a lot of unnecessary anxiety — and kept many men in prison months longer than necessary. At this point I still had no idea how my situation would resolve itself.
P.S. In my December column I described how an administrative error by the prison led to about 20 men not being able to make phone calls over the Christmas holidays. In a letter a month or two later I wrote about the way this was resolved:
“… [T]he jail agreed they could each make one 30 minute call on Christmas day, for which they would be charged. While this seemed an entirely inadequate response to the foul-up in the first place (these prisoners had four weeks with no phone money all through the holidays), it turned out these calls cost $1 per minute, so more than $30 for a half hour call, which the prisoners had to pay themselves. A number of them filed grievances. In the last two weeks, one of the assistant wardens called one of the grievers in three times to try to get him to drop his grievance — something expressly not permitted under the prison grievance rules. In the end, the higher ups leaned on the key staff person to change his story about what happened so there were no longer any ‘official’ grounds for a grievance and all of them were rejected …. It’s sad, though not at all surprising, to see an organization refuse to apply to itself the requirements it imposes on its clients.”
David Dorson is the pen name of someone who went through arrest, case disposition, imprisonment and parole in Ontario a few years ago. Law360 Canada has granted him anonymity because he offers a unique perspective on a subject that matters deeply to many readers, and revealing the author’s identity would make re-establishment in the community after serving his sentence much more difficult than it already is.
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.