Guidelines

Administrative Segregation Guidelines

PURPOSE

  • To ensure administrative segregation is only used for the shortest period of time necessary, when there are no reasonable and safe alternatives
  • To ensure that the administrative segregation of an inmate occurs only when specific legal requirements are met and that restrictions are based on the least restrictive requirements to meet the objectives of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
  • To ensure a fair, reasonable and transparent decision-making process based on a review of all relevant information
  • To contribute to the safety of staff and inmates and to the security of the institution by providing a safe and humane administrative segregation process
  • To ensure that vulnerable offenders are not placed in administrative segregation, except in exceptional circumstances

APPLICATION

  • Applies to all staff and contractors involved in the segregation process

Responsibility

  1. Pursuant to CD 709 - Administrative Segregation, the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, has the authority to develop guidelines that must be followed with respect to administrative segregation procedures. Guidelines have been developed for the following areas:
    • Segregation Assessment Tool (Annex A)
    • Administrative Segregation Assessment Framework (Annex B)
    • How to Run an Institutional Segregation Review Board (Annex C)
    • Total Accumulated Days in Segregation – Continuous Status (Annex D)
    • National Long-Term Segregation Review Committee (Annex E)
    • Reintegration Action Plan (Annex F)
    • Administrative Segregation Transfers (Annex G).

Assistant Commissioner,
Correctional Operations and Programs

Original signed by:
Fraser Macaulay

ANNEX A

SEGREGATION ASSESSMENT TOOL
Question Options Outcome
Purpose

1. Is the tool being completed to assess admission or as part of a review?

Admission

"Reason for admission" and "establishing the facts" sections become mandatory.

Amended Reason

“Reason for admission” and “establishing the facts” sections become optional.

Review

"Reason for admission" and "establishing the facts" sections become optional.

Section 1: Reason for Admission

2. What is the reason for the administrative segregation admission to be assessed?

31(3)(a)

"Question 3 becomes "Has the inmate acted or does the inmate intend to act in a manner that jeopardizes the security of the institution and/or the safety of other individuals?"

31(3)(b)

Question 3 becomes "Will allowing the inmate to associate with other inmates interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge under subsection 41(2) of a serious disciplinary offence?"

31(3)(c)

Question 3 becomes "Will allowing the inmate to associate with other inmates jeopardize the inmate’s own safety?"

3. Has the inmate acted or does the inmate intend to act in a manner that jeopardizes the security of the institution and/or the safety of other individuals?

OR

Will allowing the inmate to associate with other inmates interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge under subsection 41(2) of a serious disciplinary offence?

OR

Will allowing the inmate to associate with other inmates jeopardize the inmate’s own safety?

Yes

If response to question 2 was 31(3)(a), question 4 becomes "Has the inmate acted or does he/she intend to act in this manner?"

If response to question 2 was 31(3)(b), the user goes directly to Section 2 ("Establishing the Facts"). Questions 11-13 in Section 3 ("Risk Assessment") become optional.

If response to question 2 was 31(3)(c), question 5 becomes "If the inmate has requested admission in segregation, has explicit information been provided regarding the nature of the threat?"

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

4. Has the inmate acted or does he/she intend to act in this manner?

(only applicable if user selects CCRA 31(3)(a) as reason for admission)

The inmate has acted in this manner. The outcome does not depend on the response selected for this question; however, a response is mandatory if the reason for admission is 31(3)(a) .
The inmate intends to act in this manner.

5. If the inmate has requested admission in segregation, has explicit information been provided regarding the nature of the threat?

(only applicable if user selects CCRA 31(3)(c) as reason for admission)

Yes

User continues to question 8.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

6. Select the specific behaviour demonstrating that the inmate has acted or inmate intends to act in a manner that jeopardizes the security of the institution and/or the safety of other individuals.

(only applicable if user selects CCRA 31(3)(a)as reason for admission)

Credible threats

If one of these options is selected, the user continues to the "Establishing the Facts" section.

Inciting a riot/ disturbance

Safety risk to others

Physical fight

Contraband seizure

Safety risk to himself/ herself

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

Other

Question 7 becomes mandatory (the behaviour must be specified and described).

7. Specify and describe the behaviour.

Free text field

Mandatory to comment. If no text is entered, Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

Section 2: Establishing the Facts

8. Was the behaviour witnessed by staff?

Yes

User continues to the "Risk Assessment" section and the tool instructs the user to document these facts in a Statement/Observation Report.

No

At least one of the responses to the questions in the “Establishing the Facts” section (questions 8, 9 and 10) must be YES or the tool result will become “Segregation not Recommended”.

9. Was the behaviour reported by multiple sources?

Yes

User continues to the "Risk Assessment" section and the tool instructs the user to document these facts in a Statement/Observation Report.

No

At least one of the responses to the questions in the “Establishing the Facts” section (questions 8, 9 and 10) must be YES or the tool result will become “Segregation not Recommended”.

10. Was the behaviour brought forward to staff by source(s) believed to be reliable?

Yes

User continues to the "Risk Assessment" section and the tool instructs the user to document these facts in a Statement/Observation Report.

No

At least one of the responses to the questions in the “Establishing the Facts” section (questions 8, 9 and 10) must be YES or the tool result will become “Segregation not Recommended”.

Section 3: Risk Assessment

11. Severity of the threat that will actualize if the inmate is not segregated?

High

Question 12 becomes "Does the threat that may actualize, if the inmate is not admitted to segregation, include serious bodily injury, incitement of others to compromise the safety/security of the institution, or major destruction of property?"

Moderate

Question 12 becomes "Does the threat that may actualize, if the inmate is not admitted to segregation, include non-serious bodily injury or minor destruction of property?"

Low

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

12. Does the threat that may actualize, if the inmate is not admitted to segregation, include serious bodily injury, incitement of others to compromise the safety/security of the institution, or major destruction of property?

OR

Does the threat that may actualize, if the inmate is not admitted to segregation, include non-serious bodily injury or minor destruction of property?

Yes

User continues to question 14.

No

Question 13 becomes “Review severity rating or comment on why the severity is high or moderate”.

13. Review severity rating or comment on why the severity is high or moderate.

Free text field

Mandatory to comment. If no text is entered, Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

14. What is the likelihood that the threat will actualize if the inmate is not segregated?

High

User continues to question 15.

Moderate

User continues to question 15.

Low

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

15. Is the behaviour ongoing?

Yes

User continues to question 18.

No

At least one of the responses to question 15, 16 or 17 (substantiating the rating of high or moderate level of likelihood) must be YES or the tool will instruct the user to review the level of likelihood and consider setting it to LOW.

16. Is the inmate threatening more or similar behaviour?

Yes

User continues to question 18.

No

At least one of the responses to question 15, 16 or 17 (substantiating the rating of high or moderate level of likelihood) must be YES or the tool will instruct the user to review the level of likelihood and consider setting it to LOW.

17. Is there reliable information that indicates the intention and imminence of similar behaviour in the future?

Yes

User continues to question 18.

No

At least one of the responses to question 15, 16 or 17 (substantiating the rating of high or moderate level of likelihood) must be YES or the tool will instruct the user to review the level of likelihood and consider setting it to LOW.

18. Will the continued placement outside of segregation compromise the security of the institution, the safety of another person and/or an investigation?

Yes

User continues to question 19

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

19.  Is an admission to administrative segregation the only option to contain the behaviour in question?

Yes

User continues to question 20.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

Section 4: Alternatives Considered and Eliminated as Viable Options

20. Change in unit?

Yes

User continues to question 21.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

21. Transfer (intra or inter-regional)?

Yes

User continues to question 22.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

22. Voluntary cell confinement?

Yes

User continues to question 23.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

23. Mediation?

Yes

User continues to question 24.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

24. Culturally appropriate/ restorative alternatives?

Yes

User continues to question 25.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

25. Mental Health Care placement?

Yes

User continues to question 26.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

Section 5: Consultation

26. Has consultation occurred with members of the Case Management Team?

Yes

User continues to question 27.

No

If ‘No, the user must select a reason why a consultation did not occur.

27. Specify if the following members have been consulted: Parole Officer.

Yes

User continues to question 28.

No

If ‘No, the user must select a reason why a consultation did not occur.

28. Specify if the following members have been consulted: Health Care Staff.

Yes

User continues to question 29.

No

If ‘No, the user must select a reason why a consultation did not occur.

29. Specify if the following members have been consulted: Chaplain.

Yes

User continues to question 30.

No

If ‘No, the user must select a reason why a consultation did not occur.

30. Specify if the following members have been consulted: Elder.

Yes

User continues to question 31.

No

If ‘No, the user must select a reason why a consultation did not occur.

31. Specify if the following members have been consulted: Other.

Yes

User enters the other staff member in the response field for question 32.

No

If ‘No, the user continues to question 33.

32. Specify other.

Free text field

Section 6: Additional Considerations

33. Has the inmate's state of health and health care needs been taken into consideration?

Yes

User continues to question 34.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

34. Were all readily apparent physical and mental health concerns taken into consideration in the decision to place the inmate in administrative segregation?

Yes

User continues to question 35.

N/A

User continues to question 35.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

35. Has an incompatibility assessment, which indicates a valid and relevant existing incompatibility between offenders, been completed?

Yes

User continues to question 36.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

N/A

User continues to question 36.

36. Has the offender's Aboriginal Social History been considered?

Yes

User continues to question 37.

N/A

User continues to question 37.

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended”.

37. Does the inmate have a serious mental illness with significant impairment, or is the inmate actively engaging in self-injury which is deemed likely to result in serious bodily harm or at elevated or imminent risk of suicide?

Yes

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended.”

No

User continues to question 38.

38. Is the inmate pregnant, have significant mobility impairments or in palliative care?

Yes

Tool Result becomes “Segregation not Recommended.”

No

Tool Result becomes “Segregation Recommended.”

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS: ADMISSION
Question Options
Section 1: Use of Force

1. Use of force?

Yes

No (If no use of force was required, state that the inmate complied with the decision to place him/her in segregation and followed staff direction.)

2. Was use of force necessary in completing this administrative segregation admission?

Yes

No

3. What are the details of that use of force? (Only required if the response to question 1 was "YES".)

Enter details.

Section 2: Bedding, Clothing and Toiletries

4. Have adequate bedding, clothing and toiletries been issued?

Yes

No

5. At what time were adequate bedding, clothing and toiletries issued?

Enter time.

6. If applicable, list any other effects that were allowed on admission to segregation.

Enter list of other effects, if applicable.

Section 3: Previous Cell Secured

7. Has the inmate’s previous cell been secured?

Yes

N/A

No

8. On what date?

Enter date.

9. At what time?

Enter time.

10. Officer(s) who secured the cell?

Enter name(s) of officer(s).

Section 4: Administrative Segregation Handbook

11. Has the Administrative Segregation Handbook for Inmates been provided to the inmate?

Yes

No

12. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 11 was "NO".)

Enter details/explanation.

13. On what date?

Enter date.

14. At what time?

Enter time.

15. Who was the issuing officer?

Enter name of officer.

Section 5: Chaplain/Elder/Aboriginal Officer

16. Has the inmate been offered the opportunity to see a Chaplain, Elder or Aboriginal Officer?

Yes

No

17. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 16 was "NO".)

Select the reason

18. Has the inmate requested to meet with the Chaplain, Elder or Aboriginal Officer?

Yes

No

19. Action taken?

Select the action

Section 6: Health Needs

20. Health Services notification?

Yes

If No, the user must explain why in a free text box

21. On what date and at what time were Health Services notified and by whom?

Enter date and time of the notification, as well as the name of the individual who notified Health Services.

22. Did health care staff meet with the inmate

Yes

No

23. On what date and at what time did health care staff meet with the inmate and who met with the inmate?

Enter date and time of the visit, as well as the name of health care staff.

24. If health care staff is not on site, has the officer in charge asked the inmate if he/she has any health concerns or requires medical attention?

Yes

No

25. What was the inmate’s response? (Only required if the response to question 24 was “YES”.)

User selects the reason from a drop-down menu

26. Are there any readily apparent physical or mental health concerns (pursuant to section 87 of the CCRA) that should be taken into consideration in the decision to place an inmate in administrative segregation?

Yes

No

27. If there are concerns, what action is being taken to address them?

User selects the action from a drop-down menu

28. Has the Immediate Needs Checklist – Suicide Risk (CSC/SCC 1433e) been completed prior to the segregation admission?

Yes

No

29. Was the inmate informed of the right to engage an advocate to assist with the Institutional Segregation Review Board process? (If the inmate is identified as having functional challenges related to mental health.)

Yes

If No, the user must select the reason from a drop-down menu

Section 7: Opportunity for Inmate Complaint and Grievance

Document that: "If you are not satisfied with the decision of the Institutional Head, with the conditions of confinement or with the treatment that you received, you may submit a grievance pursuant to sections 90-91 of the CCRA, sections 74-82 of the CCRR and CD 081 – Offender Complaints and Grievances. You have the right to address sensitive information or urgent requests to the Institutional Head in a sealed envelope, which will be provided upon request."

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS: REVIEW
Question Options
Institutional Segregation Review Board (ISRB) Members

1. What is the name and title of those in attendance at the ISRB hearing?

Enter names and titles.

Inmate Attendance at the ISRB Hearing

2. Was the inmate notified of their right to attend the hearing?

Yes

No

3. Did the inmate attend the hearing?

Yes

No

4. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 3 was "NO".)

Enter details/explanation.

5. Has the inmate or someone acting on behalf of the inmate submitted written comments for consideration?

Yes

No

6. If the inmate is identified as having functional challenges related to mental health, have they been permitted the opportunity to engage an advocate to assist them with the Institutional Segregation Review Board (ISRB) process?

Yes

No

N/A

7. Was the advocate present at the hearing?

Yes

No

8. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 7 was "NO".)

Enter details/explanation.

Information Sharing

9. Has the information that will be used by the ISRB to make a decision been shared with the inmate at least three working days prior to the date of the hearing?

Yes

No

10. Indicate the date and time of the sharing and the name of the officer who completed the sharing. (The information that may be shared with the inmate may include but is not limited to Security Intelligence Officer gists, previous review information, etc.)

Enter date, time, and name of officer.

Right to Retain Legal Counsel Upon Placement in Segregation
Once the inmate has received their legal call, this question is no longer required in further reviews.

11. Did the inmate make a legal call on admission?

Yes

No

12. If, at the time of admission/placement the inmate chose to postpone their call to a later date/time, indicate if this was completed and when.

Enter date and time or N/A.

Administrative Segregation Handbook
Once the inmate has received their Administrative Segregation Handbook, this question is no longer required in further reviews.

13. Has the inmate received the Administrative Segregation Handbook for Inmates?

Yes

No

Hearing Requirements

14. Is the Institutional Segregation Review Board (ISRB) hearing being held within the legislated timeframes (i.e. within five working days of placement in administrative segregation and once every 30 days following placement)?

Yes

No

15. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 14 was "NO".)

Enter details/explanation.

16. Was it confirmed that the placement in administrative segregation was entered as a continuation of segregation placement in the Offender Management System?

Yes

No

17. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 16 was "No".)

Enter details/explanation.

INMATE’S NEEDS: REVIEW
Question Options
Health Care, Mental Health and Access to Mental Health Interventions

1. What is the outcome of the consultation with health care professionals regarding any physical and mental health needs that may impact the segregation status?

Enter details.

2. Are there any concerns in relation to the inmate’s mental and/or physical state that would preclude their continued placement in administrative segregation and/or concerns of adverse effects of segregation on the inmate?

Yes

No

3. Detail these concerns and indicate the plan to address the issues. (Only required if response to question 2 was "YES".)

Enter details.

4. If there are no concerns, indicate that there are no concerns and how it is evidenced (date, type of review, supporting documentation, etc.). (Only required if response to question 2 was "NO".)

Enter details.

5. Has the inmate made a request to speak with a mental health professional?

Yes

No

6. What was the result of this request? (Only required if response to question 5 was "YES".)

Enter details.

7. Are the inmate's health care needs met during the daily health care staff visits to administrative segregation?

Yes

No

8. Does the inmate report at the hearing that he/she requires health care attention?

Yes

No

9. Has there been any follow-up? (Only required if response to question 8 was "YES".)

Yes

No

10. Is any follow-up required in this area?

Yes

No

Access to Correctional Programs or Interventions

11. What correctional programs or interventions are being accessed by the inmate while in segregation?

Select from drop-down menu.

12. If the inmate has refused available programs or interventions, indicate which ones and why. (These may include educational self-study programs, individual or group programs.)

Enter details.

Access to Case Management Services

13. Has the inmate been seen by their Parole Officer?

Yes

No

14. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 13 was "NO".)

Enter details/explanation.

15. Indicate frequency of meeting.

Enter details.

Access to Spiritual Support

16. Has the inmate requested to see the Chaplain, Elder, Aboriginal Liaison or other spiritual advisor?

Yes

No

17. Has this occurred?

Yes

No

18. At what frequency?

Enter details.

Time Out of Cell

19. Has the inmate been given the opportunity to be out of their cell for two hours daily including the opportunity to exercise for at least one hour every day outdoors, weather permitting, or to exercise indoors where the weather does not permit exercising outdoors?

Yes

No

20. If weather did not permit outdoor exercise and the institution’s administrative segregation area does not allow for indoor exercise, what was done?

Enter details or N/A.

21. Has the Segregation Log (CSC/SCC 0218) been reviewed for confirmation?

Yes

No

Visits

22. Does the inmate receive visits?

Yes

No

23. Has the inmate met with the Inmate Committee members or peer support?

Yes

No

24. Does they wish to?

Yes

No

Showers

25. Is the inmate provided the opportunity to shower each day, including weekends and holidays?

Yes

No

26. If not, explain why. (Only required if response to question 25 was "NO".)

Enter details/explanation.

27. Has the Segregation Log (CSC/SCC 0218) been reviewed for confirmation?

Yes

No

Personal Effects

Personal effects, as deemed appropriate by the Institutional Head, will normally be provided within 24 hours.

28. Did the inmate receive their remaining personal effects, deemed appropriate by the Institutional Head, within 24 hours upon admission?

Yes

No

29. If not, explain why.

Enter details/explanation.

ANNEX B

ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

COMPLETION OF THE SEGREGATION ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT) IN OMS

  • The SAT will be completed by the Institutional Head, or delegate, prior to admission to administrative segregation and prior to each Institutional Segregation Review Board.
  • The completed SAT will be selected and attached to the Admission or Review screen in the Offender Management System (OMS).

The following information must be included in the reason/rationale section of the Segregation Admission screen in (OMS):

1) INCIDENT DESCRIPTION

Provide specific details on the reason(s) the inmate is being admitted to segregation, including:

  1. who was involved, what occurred, when, where, and if known, at what time it occurred, what precipitated the event;
  2. injuries sustained by anyone, if any;
  3. if the inmate is requesting segregation for personal safety reasons, provide a detailed description of the circumstances that led to the inmate's current situation and clearly state that the inmate has requested segregation;
  4. when applicable, identify any historical information that may have contributed to the decision to admit the inmate to segregation.

2) PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

  • Verify that all procedural safeguards have been addressed in the Segregation Assessment Tool.
  • If not, provide an explanation as to why they were not met.

3) ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ELIMINATED AS VIABLE OPTIONS

  • Have all alternatives to administrative segregation been considered and eliminated as viable options? Provide a justification for each alternative demonstrating why they were not viable.

4) ABORIGINAL SOCIAL HISTORY

  • In accordance with CD 702 – Aboriginal Offenders, ensure that all factors relevant to the inmate’s Aboriginal social history were considered prior to rendering a decision. This includes discussion about the incident, possible link with the inmate’s Aboriginal social history, access to Elder support, Aboriginal programs, and traditional healing paths.
  • Demonstrate that the unique circumstances of the Aboriginal offender were defined and considered, including whether culturally appropriate alternatives and restorative options were considered and eliminated as viable options. If culturally appropriate alternatives and restorative options are not viable, provide a justification.
  • When consulting with the Case Management Team, demonstrate that relevant individual static and dynamic factors of the inmate were considered with respect to the inmate’s Aboriginal social history.

5) PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH

  • Were physical and mental health needs taken into consideration in the decision to place the inmate in administrative segregation? Demonstrate that all factors relevant to the inmate’s physical and mental health needs were considered in rendering a decision, particularly in relation to the admission to administrative segregation. This will include discussion about the incident and possible link to the inmate’s physical and mental health.

6) SEGREGATION HISTORY

  • Does the inmate have a history of segregation admissions? Provide a description of the inmate’s segregation history and demonstrate that this information was considered in rendering a decision.

7) RECOMMENDATION

  • Indicate the result of the Segregation Assessment Tool.
  • Indicate the recommendation to the Institutional Head on the admission to administrative segregation or on the release from administrative segregation.
    • A rationale must be provided if any variation from the Segregation Assessment Tool, including a justification as to which area, as indicated by the Segregation Assessment Tool, is being considered to be under or overstating the risk.

8) REGIONAL REVIEW

  • Inform the inmate that if they remain in administrative segregation, the Regional Deputy Commissioner will review their case within 40 days of their admission to administrative segregation. The review will be based on information used in the most recent institutional segregation review and any other new information that may become available after that time. The inmate will be provided the opportunity to submit written representations to the Regional Segregation Review Board for consideration. The inmate may submit representations to their Parole Officer, who will forward these to the Regional Headquarters. Confirm whether they understand and if they have any questions regarding this process.

9) RECORDING OF DECISIONS

The following will be documented in all Institutional Segregation Review Board decisions and all Regional Segregation Review Board decisions:

  • A statement to the effect that all factors relevant to the case were considered in rendering a decision, including Aboriginal social history, and physical and mental health needs.
  • “If you are not satisfied with the decision of the Institutional Head or you are not satisfied with the conditions of confinement or the treatment that you received, you may submit a grievance pursuant to sections 90-91 of the CCRA, sections 74-82 of the CCRR and CD 081 – Offender Complaints and Grievances by providing the Grievance Coordinator at your institution with a written submission that outlines your concerns. A national toll-free phone number (1-800-263-1019) is also available to you to inquire about the offender complaint and grievance process.”
  • “You also have the right to either contact or file a complaint with the Office of the Correctional Investigator or the Canadian Human Rights Commission.”

ANNEX C

HOW TO RUN AN INSTITUTIONAL SEGREGATION REVIEW BOARD

In accordance with legislation, an Institutional Segregation Review Board (ISRB) must be put in place to conduct review hearings of cases where inmates are confined in administrative segregation. This Board makes recommendations to the Institutional Head as to whether or not an inmate should be released from administrative segregation at this time.

HEARING LOCATION

The location of the hearing should be a private room where the hearing is not audible by other staff or inmates.

ISRB MEMBERS

The ISRB will include a mental health professional, and may (depending on the type of review) include the Institutional Head, the Deputy Warden, the Assistant Warden, Interventions, the Assistant Warden, Operations, the Manager, Assessment and Interventions, the Manager, Intensive Intervention Strategy (in women’s institutions), and/or the Correctional Manager, the Parole Officer, and any other ad hoc members as required by the Chairperson or requested by the inmate.

The ad hoc members may include, but are not limited to: the Security Intelligence Officer, Psychologist, Program Officer, Correctional Officer II, Primary Worker, Elder, etc.

The Security Intelligence Officer will, upon request of the Chairperson of the ISRB, attend in person or provide a gist of the security intelligence information required for consideration by the ISRB.

The Institutional Segregation Review Board will be chaired by:

  1. the Deputy Warden, for the fifth-working-day review
  2. the Institutional Head, for the 30-day review and all subsequent reviews. The 30-day review can be delegated to the Deputy Warden with the approval of the Regional Deputy Commissioner. This delegation will be provided in writing to the Institutional Head.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INSTITUTIONAL SEGREGATION REVIEW BOARD

Rules of procedure and evidence that apply to a court of law do not apply to ISRB hearings, although there is a duty on the part of Board members to adhere to the principles of fairness.

The Chairperson and the decision maker must act in good faith, without ulterior purpose, improper motives or irrelevant considerations. The role of the ISRB Chairperson is critical to the effectiveness and fairness of the administrative segregation process. Chairpersons have the primary responsibility to ensure that basic procedural requirements are continuously being administered in compliance with the law.

The Chairperson must demonstrate an ongoing knowledge of the law, policies and procedures to effectively manage the Institutional Segregation Review Board’s (ISRB) responsibility to provide the Institutional Head with a recommendation as to whether or not the inmate should be released from or maintained in administrative segregation.

The Chairperson must understand the need to balance the legitimate safety and security requirements of the institution with the need to respect and maintain the rights of segregated inmates.

When the Institutional Head is the Chairperson of the ISRB at the 30-day review (and all subsequent reviews), prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Institutional Head will designate a member of the ISRB with the responsibility to present the final recommendation of the ISRB.

It should be noted that the hearing cannot proceed until a member has been named to present the recommendation to the Institutional Head.

PURPOSE AND PROCESS OF THE REVIEW

When the hearing commences, the Chairperson may call witnesses as appropriate, including the inmate.

The inmate will be presented with the recommendation of the ISRB by the Institutional Head and informed that a final decision regarding their segregation status will be provided, in writing, within two business days.

Upon commencement of a hearing, the Chairperson will:

  1. introduce, by name and title, the ISRB members in attendance to the inmate
  2. ensure that all in attendance at the hearing are aware that they may ask questions and make inquiries in order to elicit information
  3. explain the purpose of the review to the inmate, using the following statements:

  4. “My name is (name here). I am the Chairperson of the Institutional Segregation Review Board today. Present are the following staff members who will have an opportunity to ask questions of you and vice versa (introductions). You will also have an opportunity to make a verbal presentation to the Board prior to deliberations. Note the Institutional Segregation Review Board makes a recommendation regarding your release from or maintenance in segregation while decision-making authority rests with the Institutional Head. You will receive written notification of the Institutional Head’s decision within two working days of this Institutional Segregation Review Board hearing.”

    “The purpose of the Institutional Segregation Review Board is to examine the reasons/ circumstances justifying your admission to administrative segregation under the authority of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to determine whether or not alternatives to your continued admission exist which would see you released from segregation. The Institutional Segregation Review Board will discuss and obtain your input on the likely Reintegration Action Plan for resolving your segregation status in the timeliest fashion possible. To date, you have accumulated X number of days in segregation. Do you understand what I have said or have any questions before we begin?”

  5. conduct the hearing in a predetermined and orderly manner, allowing all participants a chance to speak or make representations
  6. allow for the hearing to be recorded on audio recorder, if requested by the inmate.

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS

Prior to the case discussion, the ISRB Chairperson will lead a review to ensure that procedural safeguards have been maintained. At any time, the ISRB Chairperson may choose to examine further information to ensure these requirements are met [i.e. the Segregation Log (CSC/SCC 0218), or any other document].

  1. The administrative segregation documentation must detail the following:
    1. the substantive reasons why the inmate requires administrative segregation
    2. that the reasons are sufficiently detailed and in language for the inmate to understand them
    3. that the inmate was given written notice of the reasons for segregation within one working day after their admission
    4. that a first-working-day review was completed if the Institutional Head or staff member acting in the position was not the admission authority
    5. that the final outcome/result of the Segregation Assessment Tool was recorded.
  2. The inmate was provided the opportunity to make a phone call to their lawyer within the initial 24 hour period of their admission to administrative segregation.
  3. The inmate was provided with the institution’s Administrative Segregation Handbook for Inmates on admission to segregation.
  4. The ISRB Chairperson should confirm that these actions have occurred and immediate action will be taken to ensure it is resolved and documented for the next review.
  5. The ISRB must conduct a hearing within five working days after the inmate’s admission to administrative segregation, and at least once every 30 days following admission. Reviews may also be scheduled at any time if necessary. Any irregularity should be noted and explained. The 30-day timeframe includes the two days between the ISRB and the decision of the Institutional Head.

In subsequent reviews, steps 2 and 4 are not required if they have already been taken.

The inmate must receive notice of the hearing and sufficient details of all the information that the Institutional Segregation Review Board (ISRB) will be considering at the hearing. This notice and information must be given to the inmate at least three working days before the hearing, and it must be in writing. The inmate can choose to waive this notice and receipt of information.

Information Sharing

If additional information becomes available after the three-day notification and before the hearing, the Chairperson of the ISRB must ensure that the inmate is given reasonable time to consider the information. The inmate should be given the opportunity to decide if they require additional time to review the documentation. If an adjournment is requested, the adjournment period should not be for more than three working days, unless specifically requested by the inmate.

If the inmate does not have an adequate understanding of at least one of Canada’s official languages or requires arrangements based on other needs (for instance if the inmate is deaf), arrangements must be made to have the assistance of an interpreter, who may be another staff member, professional translator or other as required by the circumstances of the case.

Inmate's Needs

Prior to the case discussion, the ISRB Chairperson will lead a review to ensure that the inmate’s needs, where possible, have been addressed.

This will include an examination of any physical or mental health care needs. Parole Officers are required to consult with health care professionals to obtain pertinent and available inmate information. This information must be documented in all segregation review boards. Physical or mental health care needs should be examined particularly in relation to their impact on the administrative segregation admission.

The health professional participating in the ISRB will continue to assess whether the inmate meets the following circumstances:

  1. inmates with a serious mental illness with significant impairment, including inmates who are certified in accordance with the relevant provincial/territorial legislation
  2. inmates actively engaging in self-injury that is deemed likely to result in serious bodily harm or at elevated or imminent risk for suicide.

If either of these circumstances has been identified, the inmate must be immediately released from segregation and provided with the appropriate level of care.

Discussion should examine the inmate’s access to correctional programs or interventions. Any needs should be identified.

Discussion should examine the inmate’s access to case management services. Has the inmate been seen by their Parole Officer? If not, explain why. Following an inmate’s admission to administrative segregation, a Parole Officer will meet with the inmate within two working days to explore reintegration options.

Discuss any changes or action relative to the inmate’s Correctional Plan.

Discussion should examine the inmate’s access to spiritual support. Has the inmate requested to see the Chaplain/Aboriginal Elder or other appropriate spiritual advisor? Has this occurred and at what frequency?

Does the inmate have any sources of support available? Do they receive visits? Has the inmate met with the Inmate Committee members or peer support? Do they wish to?

Has the need for time outside of the cell and a daily shower been met?

Did the inmate receive basic personal effects on admission (such as bedding and toiletries)? Personal effects, as deemed appropriate by the Institutional Head, will be provided within 24 hours. At the time of this review, has the inmate received their personal effects? If not, explain why. If this issue has been resolved, it can be indicated and does not need to be repeated in future reviews.

Review of Rights and Procedural Safeguards

If any of the inmate’s rights have been violated, or if any of the procedural safeguards have not been fulfilled, the Chairperson must consider whether such infringements affect the fairness of the proceedings in a significant enough way to warrant the granting of an extraordinary remedy.

Rescheduling of the hearing until the safeguards have been met is one possible remedy.

If the procedural safeguards have been respected, then the Board may continue with the next step of the hearing.

INSTITUTIONAL SEGREGATION REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATIONS

The Chairperson should provide a verbal synopsis to minimally include the following:

  1. when and why the inmate was admitted to administrative segregation
  2. under what status the inmate is segregated [i.e. (date) under what section of the CCRA]
  3. if there has been any change in the status and if so, why there was a change
  4. the numbers of days the inmate has been in administrative segregation to this review date.

The Institutional Segregation Review Board (ISRB) will discuss the incident and possible link with inmate factors, including Aboriginal social history, mental or physical health. When possible, systemic or individual adjustments should be sought as an alternative to segregation to manage the risk. The Board must ensure that the information and evidence being considered is relevant, timely and adequate. The information must be credible and reliable.

ISRB members will discuss the reasons for admission and continued status of the inmate in administrative segregation. They will discuss whether there are any viable alternatives for the inmate. For Aboriginal inmates, culturally appropriate alternatives and restorative options will be considered.

The Board will discuss the inmate’s Reintegration Action Plan and progress towards this plan. There must be a documented, clearly defined, timeframed plan of action being taken by the Case Management Team to transfer the inmate out of administrative segregation.

The Board should also discuss any specific security issues with the inmate. This may be related to institutional behaviour or disciplinary offences. Any special needs regarding operational routine, requirements or association with other inmates should also be discussed.

The inmate should be given the opportunity to ask any relevant questions to the Chairperson, or through the Chairperson, to other participants. ISRB members may address questions to the inmate or other participants. Other staff members, Board members or persons with relevant information may be asked to make representations. If the inmate is absent from the hearing, and has submitted written representation, this information must be considered by the ISRB. When all representations have been made, the inmate is given the opportunity to present their case and to provide evidence to the extent allowed by the Chairperson. Board members may ask questions.

If the Chairperson determines it is reasonable and necessary in order to resolve a disputed fact or opinion in a fair manner, the inmate will be given the opportunity to call witnesses. Board members may ask questions to these witnesses.

Final submissions by the inmates should be permitted, as well as submissions by any other person who has a right to participate in the hearing.

INMATE COMMENTS

The inmate must have a reasonable opportunity to make representations, explain or clarify information, or answer any allegations made against them at each stage of the hearing.

RECOMMENDATION

If the Board needs additional information before arriving at its recommendation, or cannot reach a decision on its recommendation immediately, it may recess and reconvene at a later time.

If the inmate remains in administrative segregation while the deliberations are recessed, then the resumption of deliberations should be the Board’s highest priority.

The function of the Board is to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to justify the inmate’s admission and retention in administrative segregation (subsection 31(3) of the CCRA) and whether at the time of the review the inmate still needs to be confined in administrative segregation.

Recommendations to the Institutional Head must be based on the considerations set out in section 31 of the CCRA. In arriving at its recommendation, the Board should consider the relevant facts of the case, the result provided by the Segregation Assessment Tool, as well as any statutory, regulatory and policy considerations related to the inmate’s admission to administrative segregation.

The recommendation will fully consider the relevant individual static and dynamic factors of the inmate raised during the Case Management Team consultation, including mental and physical needs and Aboriginal social history. The recommendation to the Institutional Head should articulate the reasons for the recommendation.

The quality of the decision-making process is enhanced by giving detailed reasons that provide a basis for future decision making and reviews. The reasons for the recommendation must be clear, organized and provide justification that supports the recommendation. The recommendation is usually given to the inmate verbally, after a short period of deliberation by the ISRB.

Written notification of the Institutional Head’s decision resulting from each review must be given to the inmate within two working days of the hearing.

RIGHTS AND REVIEWS

Pursuant to CD 081 – Offender Complaints and Grievances, the inmate must be informed of their right to grieve the institutional or regional review decision, as applicable.

The inmate will be provided with a written copy of the Board’s review, including information about the grievance process, within five working days of the review.

The Regional Deputy Commissioner may direct the Institutional Head to take recommended action in order to resolve the inmate’s segregation status, including reviewing the inmate’s case for transfer, if necessary.

ANNEX D

TOTAL ACCUMULATED DAYS IN SEGREGATION - CONTINUOUS STATUS

Period Not Exceeding Seven Calendar Days

When an inmate is released from administrative segregation for a period not exceeding seven calendar days and is subsequently readmitted to segregation, this is to be entered as a “Continuation of Segregation Status” on the Administrative Segregation Admission screen in OMS. This ensures that regional segregation reviews are conducted based on the total accumulated days in segregation – continuous status.

Period Exceeding Seven Calendar Days

When an inmate is released from administrative segregation for a period exceeding seven calendar days, any subsequent admission to segregation is not to be entered as a “Continuation of Segregation Status” on the Administrative Segregation Admission screen in OMS. Segregation reviews are to be conducted based on the standard requirements that are prescribed by policy.

ANNEX E

NATIONAL LONG-TERM SEGREGATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

PROCESS

Prior to each meeting, National Headquarters will provide NLTSRC members with the list of inmates for review. The NLTSRC meeting should normally occur on a bi-weekly basis.

At this meeting, NLTSRC members will consider the inmate’s:

  • Aboriginal social history
  • gender
  • state of mental and physical health and health care needs, including available mental health treatment options
  • history of administrative segregation
  • current accumulated days in administrative segregation
  • actions taken to date, including mental health considerations
  • alternatives explored
  • transfer options.

When an inter-regional transfer is expected, the transfer date will be confirmed at the meeting, based on the inter-regional transfer flight calendar or regional transfer schedule.

RESULTS

Within five working days following the meeting, the recommendation and the decision will be entered in OMS and the inmate will be provided with a written copy of the Committee’s review, which includes:

  • the NLTSRC recommendation and Senior Deputy Commissioner’s decision, and if necessary, directions for the Institutional Head to take action in order to resolve the inmate’s segregation status, such as reviewing the inmate’s case for transfer
  • information about the grievance process.

The Regional Administrator, Interventions, will ensure the sharing of information within the five-day timeframe.

ANNEX F

REINTEGRATION ACTION PLAN

The purpose of the Reintegration Action Plan is to outline the actions to be taken to safely release the inmate from administrative segregation at the earliest appropriate time, and to monitor and support the inmate in the time period immediately following release from administrative segregation.

The Reintegration Action Plan will include the following:

  1. a description of the inmate’s segregation history and relevant information, including institutional adjustment issues, and any ongoing contributing static and dynamic factors
  2. the results of the Segregation Assessment Tool (SAT) for this review period and any variance between the SAT recommendation and the decision to place the inmate in administrative segregation, including a rationale indicating which area of the SAT is considered to be under or overstating the risk
  3. a release plan (e.g. return to population, transfer, mental health bed/placement, culturally appropriate alternatives, etc.)
  4. a description of actions required to carry out the Reintegration Action Plan and planned timeframes
  5. an outline of any physical and mental health needs and supports to be provided where applicable
  6. an outline of any Aboriginal specific needs, including the inmate’s Aboriginal social history where applicable
  7. when reintegration within the institution is not possible, all alternatives have been considered and eliminated as viable options, and transfer must be initiated, the transfer will be completed as outlined in Annex G of these Guidelines, for the purpose of alleviating an inmate’s administrative segregation status
  8. actions to be taken following the inmate’s release from segregation, including necessary staff contacts and program referrals specific to the needs of the inmate and to support a successful reintegration.

ANNEX G

ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION TRANSFERS

ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION TRANSFERS

After the institution has considered all alternatives to segregation and eliminated them as viable options, and it has been determined that reintegration within the institution is not possible, an involuntary inter/intra-regional transfer must be initiated for the purpose of alleviating an inmate’s administrative segregation status.

The following must be included in the Assessment for Decision for the transfer:

  • the Reintegration Action Plan
  • a review of the inmate’s security classification prior to the 27-day Institutional Segregation Review Board (pursuant to CD 710-6 – Review of Inmate Security Classification), as required
  • a statement explaining why the transfer (e.g. involuntary, emergency, inter-regional/intra-regional), is necessary and why the inmate is deemed ready for transfer.

Administrative Segregation Case Details

Risk Assessment

  1. Risk Factors
    • Outline any institutional adjustment issues, such as incompatibles and security threat groups.
    • Describe the inmate’s behaviour to date and assess the inmate’s potential for continued violent behaviour that poses serious risks to staff or inmates in another institution.
  2. Inmate Security Level Review (refer to CD 710-6 – Review of Inmate Security Classification)
  • Confirm or complete (as required) an analysis of the security level assessment pursuant to section 18 of the CCRR.
    • A statement will be made under each of the following areas:
      1. institutional adjustment
      2. escape risk
      3. risk to public safety.
  • For transfers to a higher security level, reference the offender security level as required.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Provide an overall assessment incorporating the following elements:

  • results of the case conference with the receiving institution
  • victim concerns (if applicable)
  • consultation with Security Intelligence Officer (e.g. incompatibles and affiliations) (if there are no concerns, a statement should be made to that effect)
  • recent professional opinions regarding transfer such as from the Case Management Team, health care, mental health, psychological information, police comments and/or previous CSC decisions (if applicable). Consider any pertinent results/recommendations from the psychological and/or psychiatric assessments and/or health care in the final transfer decision
  • physical or mental health concerns (pursuant to section 87 of the CCRA) as identified by Health/Mental Health Services that would preclude the inmate's transfer
  • current risk
  • inmate engagement
  • outstanding factors requiring intervention
  • an analysis of any high risk behaviours or patterns observed during the sentence
  • Aboriginal social history (if applicable). For an inmate involved in a healing path, incorporate their understanding of the healing components of the Correctional Plan. Must be linked to the decision with a rationale that explains why they did or did not impact the decision
  • how the recommendation meets the needs of the inmate while ensuring the safety of the public
  • make reference to the existence of security information that relates to the present or previous incident(s) or to the existence of incompatibles at the present and proposed institutions. Provide a rationale where such information cannot be shared with the inmate, or if only the gist of the information can be shared.

Criteria for selection of penitentiary

  • The sending institution must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the receiving region provides the inmate with an environment that contains only the necessary restrictions, taking into account:
    1. accessibility to
      1. the inmate’s home community and family
      2. a compatible cultural environment
      3. a compatible linguistic environment
    2. the availability of appropriate programs and services and the inmate’s willingness to participate in those programs.

ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION TRANSFER PROCEDURES

As a means of alleviating an administrative segregation placement, all decisions relating to involuntary transfers will be made in accordance with CD 710-2 – Transfer of Inmates, and the modifications listed below.

Voluntary transfers will be processed in accordance with GL 710-2-3 – Inmate Transfer Process.

Intra-Regional Transfer

  1. The Parole Officer at the sending institution will:
    1. complete the Assessment for Decision for the transfer
    2. notify the Regional Administrator, Interventions (RAI), or delegate of the region by email of the Assessment for Decision for the transfer.
  2. The RAI or delegate of the region will, within one working day of being notified of the request, consult with institution(s) that potentially meet the necessary requirements within their region.
  3. The proposed institution(s) will, within three working days of being notified of the request, submit comments to the RAI or delegate of the region. In cases where an inmate is not accepted for transfer, a rationale and clearly articulated reasons must be provided.
  4. The RAI or delegate of the region will notify the Parole Officer of the sending institution who will enter the comments in the Assessment for Decision for the transfer within one working day.
  5. Pursuant to section 12 of the CCRR and CD 701 – Information Sharing, the Institutional Head or designate of the sending institution will ensure the procedural fairness process is completed with the inmate before the transfer by:
    1. meeting with the inmate to explain the reasons for the proposed transfer
    2. providing the inmate with a copy of:
      1. the Assessment for Decision for the transfer
      2. the Institutional Segregation Review Board recommendation and decision
      3. any other information that will be used in the decision-making process
    3. giving the inmate written notice of the involuntary transfer recommendation
    4. providing the inmate two working days to respond in person or in writing to the transfer. If the inmate responds in person, the response must be documented in a “Casework Record – Rebuttal”.
  6. The inmate's rebuttal, a copy of the most recent Correctional Plan Update (if required) and the Assessment for Decision for the transfer will be forwarded to the Institutional Head of the sending institution as the authorized decision maker.  Authorities for transfers to and from a Healing Lodge will be in accordance with GL 710-2-3 – Inmate Transfer Processes.
  7. Where an agreement cannot be reached in the decision-making process, cases will be reviewed by the Regional Deputy Commissioner, or designated staff.
  8. The inmate will be provided with the written notice of the final decision and the associated reasons via the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet:
    1. at least two days before the transfer, unless the inmate waives the two-day period on the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet, or
    2. within five working days of the final decision being rendered, if the decision is not to transfer the inmate.
  9. The Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation and the inmate's rebuttal (if one is submitted) will be forwarded to the Regional Administrator, Interventions (RAI), of the sending region.
  10. In exceptional circumstances of a missed timeframe for a decision, a note will be added in the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet for the transfer explaining the reason for the delay and indicating the expected date for a decision.

Inter-Regional Transfer

  1. The Parole Officer at the sending institution will:
    1. complete the Assessment for Decision for the transfer for administrative segregation
    2. notify the RAI or delegate of the sending region by email of the Assessment for Decision for the transfer for administrative segregation.
  2. The RAI or delegate of the sending region will notify the RAI or delegate of the receiving region(s) by email of the Assessment for Decision for the transfer for administrative segregation within one working day.
  3. The RAI or delegate of the receiving region(s) will, within one working day of being notified of the request, consult with institution(s) that potentially meet the necessary requirements within their region.
  4. The proposed institution(s) will, within five working days of being notified of the request, submit comments to the RAI or delegate of the sending region. In cases where an inmate is not accepted for transfer, a rationale and clearly articulated reasons must be provided.
  5. The RAI or delegate of the receiving region(s) will, within one working day, submit the comments provided by the institution(s) within the region to the RAI or delegate of the sending region.
  6. The RAI or delegate of the sending region will notify the Parole Officer who will enter the comments in the Assessment for Decision for the transfer for administrative segregation.
  7. Pursuant to section 12 of the CCRR and CD 701 – Information Sharing, the Institutional Head or designate of the sending institution will ensure the procedural fairness process is completed with the inmate before the transfer by:
    1. meeting with the inmate to explain the reasons for the proposed transfer
    2. providing the inmate with a copy of:
      1. the Assessment for Decision for the transfer for administrative segregation
      2. the Institutional Segregation Review Board recommendation and decision
      3. any other information that will be used in the decision-making process
    3. giving the inmate written notice of the involuntary transfer recommendation
    4. providing the inmate two working days to respond in person or in writing to the transfer. If the inmate responds in person, the response must be documented in a “Casework Record – Rebuttal”.
  8. The inmate's rebuttal, a copy of the most recent Correctional Plan Update (if required) and the Assessment for Decision for the transfer will be forwarded to the Institutional Head of the sending institution as the authorized decision maker. Authorities for transfers to and from a Healing Lodge will be pursuant to GL 710-2-3 – Inmate Transfer Processes.
  9. In the case where there is disagreement in the decision-making process, the case will be reviewed by the Director General, Security, at National Headquarters, or designate.
  10. The inmate will be provided with the written notice of the final decision and the associated reasons via the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet:
    1. at least two days before the transfer, unless the inmate waives the two-day period on the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet, or
    2. within five working days of the final decision being rendered, if the decision is not to transfer the inmate.
  11. The Institutional Head of the sending institution will provide comments and address the inmate’s rebuttal (if one is submitted) via the recommendation section of the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet.
  12. The Notice of Involuntary Transfer Recommendation and the inmate's rebuttal (if one is submitted) will be forwarded to the RAI of the sending region.
  13. Refer to GL 710-2-2 – Inter-Regional Transfers by Air for the processes applicable to those transfers.

For more information

To learn about upcoming or ongoing consultations on proposed federal regulations, visit the Canada Gazette and Consulting with Canadians websites.