Correctional Service Canada
www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Task Force Report on Administrative Segregation
Q. Annexes
Annex 1: Guide for Conducting SRB Hearings
The institutional head may designate a person, or persons, to sit as members of a Segregation Review Board. The purpose of this Board is to conduct review hearings of cases where inmates are involuntarily confined in administrative segregation. The Board must make recommendations to the institutional head as to whether or not inmates should be released from administrative segregation (CCRA s.33; CCRR 21(1)). The final decision of whether the inmate should be released from or maintained in administrative segregation rests with the institutional head (CCRA s.32).
Step 1 - Preparations for the Hearing
Certain practical preparations need to be made before the hearing. These include reserving a closed room with a table, ensuring there are sufficient chairs for the participants, a tape recorder, notepads, pens, etc. (an OMS terminal).
Before commencing the hearing, activate the tape recorder.
Every SRB Hearing should be recorded on audio tape. This serves as a record of accuracy for the hearing in case there are any questions of irregularities. If the hearing is not taped, one person should be appointed to take minutes, which should detail, as much as possible, the procedure followed during the hearing and summarize what was said.
The record of each hearing should be retained for a period of at least two years after the decision is rendered, as required for serious disciplinary hearings (CCRR 33(2)). On request, an inmate should be given reasonable access to the record of the hearing (CCRR 33(3)).
Step 2 - Proper Notice
The Segregation Review Board must conduct a hearing within five working days after the inmate's confinement in administrative segregation, and at least once every 30 days thereafter (CCRR 21(2)).
The inmate must receive notice of the hearing and sufficient details of all the information that the Board 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 (CCRR 21(3)).
The administrative segregation placement form must detail the substantive reasons why the inmate poses a risk to the safety of a person, the security of the institution or might interfere with an investigation.
Staff members must document, on the placement form, the specific and verifiable reasonable grounds for placement, in other words the "face of the record" should be able to justify the placement to any "reasonable person".
Any supporting documentation, such as observation reports, should accompany the placement form so that the Warden's one-day review can properly consider whether a reasonable alternative exists; whether segregation is the "last resort" and the least restrictive measure consistent with the risk. Potential reintegration plans should be developed at this point.
Notice of the time, place and date of the SRB hearing may be included on the placement form. Any reports or other information that are going to be considered at the hearing must be shared with the inmate as soon as practical. A record must be made of what was shared and when it was shared with the inmate, either in hard copy or in a summary format (subject to CCRA s.27(3).
Step 3 - Composition of Board
The Board should consist of a core group - the Chairperson, the Unit Manager responsible for the administrative segregation unit, the IPSO, and a case management officer and may include one or more other participants as required (psychologist, member of the Program Board, the Elder, etc.). The Chairperson should be at the Deputy or Assistant Warden level. The institutional head must designate, by name or position in institutional standing orders, the persons who may be members of the SRB (CCRR 21(1)).
All persons who are present at the hearing should identify themselves by name, position and their role at the hearing.
The record must show exactly who acts as a decision-maker.
The Chairperson of the SRB must be "certified" through education, training and experience in the conduct of administrative review hearings, for example, through successful completion of a program of national competency standards including legal awareness, the conduct of a hearing and administrative decision-making.
Step 4 - Purpose of the Board
Explain to the inmate the general purpose of the Segregation Review Board.
A statement explaining the purpose of the SRB should be read out loud to all the participants at the beginning of the hearing:
"The purpose of this Segregation Review Board is to conduct review hearings of cases where inmates are involuntarily confined in administrative segregation. This Board makes recommendations to the institutional head as to whether or not you should be released from administrative segregation at this time."
Final decisions on an inmate's segregation status are to be made by the institutional head. This power cannot be delegated but may be exercised by another person who is Acting Warden at the time, and identified as such on the decision form.
Where the institutional head does not intend to accept a recommendation to release an inmate from administrative segregation, the institutional head shall, as soon as practicable, meet with the inmate
- to explain the reasons for not intending to accept the recommendation; and
- to give the inmate an opportunity to make oral or written representations (CCRA s.33).
Step 5 - Checklist of Procedural Safeguards
Review the checklist of procedural safeguards orally to see if the appropriate requirements have been fulfilled.
Inmate Rights
- Has the inmate's language preference been accommodated?
- Has the inmate been advised of his or her right to be present at the hearing?
- Was the inmate given an opportunity to attend the SRB hearing?
- Was the inmate given a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct legal counsel without delay? (CCRR 97(2))
- Was the inmate given information regarding procedural rights, privileges, and the routine in segregation? (CD 590 s.22)
- Was the inmate given written notice of the reasons for segregation within one working day after the inmate's confinement? (CCRR 19)
- Was the inmate given written notice of the hearing at least 3 working days before the hearing? (CCRR 21(3))
- Did the inmate receive sufficient detail in writing of the information that the Board will consider at least 3 working days before the hearing? (CCRR 21(3))
- What are the reasons for any irregularity? Explain fully.
Requirements of Institutional Head
Did the institutional head review the order to place the inmate in segregation within one working day after the inmate's confinement? (CCRR 20)
Has the inmate received daily visits by a registered health care professional?
Did the institutional head, or delegate (CCRR 6(e)), visit the segregation area daily? (CCRA s.36(1))
Was the inmate given a daily opportunity to request a meeting with the institutional head or delegate during the daily visit? (CCRA 36(2), CCRR 6(e))
Procedural Requirements of the Board
Is the hearing being held within 5 working days of the inmate's placement in segregation? (CCRR 21(2)(a)) or,
Is the hearing being held at least once every 30 days after the placement? (CCRR 21(2)(b)) or,
Is the hearing being held in addition to the routine 5/30 day reviews?
Step 6 - Proceeding with the Hearing Requirements
If the procedural safeguards have been respected, then the Board may continue with the next step of the hearing.
If any of the inmates' rights have been violated, or if any of the procedural safeguards have not been fulfilled, the decision-maker must consider whether such infringements affect the fairness of the proceedings in a significant enough way to warrant the granting of an extraordinary remedy. Re-scheduling of the hearing until the safeguards have been met is one possible remedy and another is recommending the inmate's release from segregation as a result of a high degree of unfairness in the process.
Inmates must have received copies of all written reports and collected information to be used at the SRB hearing, no later than three working days before the hearing.
If additional information becomes available after the 3-day notification and before the hearing, the Chairperson of the SRB must ensure that the inmate is given reasonable time to consider the information. The inmate should be given the opportunity to decide if he or she requires 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.
Step 7 - Issues to be Considered
Announce the specific issues to be considered.
The Chairperson of the SRB should describe the circumstances which gave rise to the inmate's confinement in segregation (the placement form), and must indicate that the Board will determine whether there are adequate grounds to justify keeping the inmate in segregation. This is similar to a court reading a charge to an accused. The inmate must know the case against him or her. More specifically, the inmate must be fully aware of the information the Board will consider and must have a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and information.
Other issues include potential reasonable alternatives to segregation and the measures being taken to return the inmate to the general inmate population at the earliest appropriate time (CCRA s.31).
Step 8 - Procedure to be Followed
Announce the procedure that the hearing will follow.
The Board should conduct the hearing in a predetermined and orderly manner. The procedure to be followed must be clearly described so that all participants will know when they will have a chance to speak or make representations.
It must also be made clear to all persons present that the Board will follow an inquisitorial model, which means that Board members may ask questions and make inquiries in order to elicit information from the participants. The strict rules of procedure and evidence that apply to a court of law do not apply to SRB hearings, although there is a duty on the part of Board members to adhere to the principles of fairness. The decision-maker must act in good faith, without ulterior purpose, improper motives or irrelevant considerations
The Board should announce the different stages of the hearing: grounds for placement, case management input, health care needs, and so on.
The inmate must have a reasonable opportunity to make representations, explain or clarify information, and answer the charges and allegations made against him or her at each stage of the hearing.
The Board must ensure that the information and evidence being considered is relevant, timely and adequate. The information must be credible and reliable.
Step 9 - Conducting the Hearing
A typical hearing should adhere to the following requirements:
If the inmate does not have an adequate understanding of at least one of Canada's official languages, arrangements must be made to have the assistance of an interpreter (CCRA s.27(4)), who may be another inmate, staff member, professional translator or other as required by the circumstances of the case.
The inmate is given the opportunity to ask any relevant questions of the Chairperson, or through the Chairperson, of other participants. Board members may address questions to the inmate.
Other staff members, board members or persons with relevant information may be asked to make representations.
When all representations have been made, the inmate is given the opportunity to present his or her case and to present evidence to the extent allowed by the Chairperson. Board members may ask questions.
The inmate may be given the opportunity to call witnesses if she or he requests to do so and the Chairperson agrees that it is reasonable and necessary in order to resolve a disputed fact or opinion in a fair manner. Board members may ask questions of 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.
Step 10 - Evidence to be Considered
Consider all the evidence and make a decision on the appropriate recommendation.
In arriving at its decision, the Board should consider the relevant facts of the case, as well as any statutory, regulatory and policy considerations related to the inmate's placement in administrative segregation.
If the Board needs additional information before arriving at its decision, or cannot reach a decision immediately, it may recess and reconvene at a later time. If the inmate remains in 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 placement and retention in segregation (CCRA s.31(3)). Recommendations to the institutional head must be based on the considerations set out in section 31 of the CCRA (CCRA s.32).
It should be remembered that administrative segregation must not be used as a form of punishment. The purpose of administrative segregation is to keep an inmate from associating with the general inmate population (CCRA s.31(1)). The CCRA places an obligation on CSC to return the inmate to the general inmate population at the earliest appropriate time (CCRA s.31(2)).
Step 11 - Written Reasons
The review board must provide written reasons for its recommendations to the inmate and the institutional head. (CD 590 21 (g))
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 (CD 590 s.21(h)). The recommendation decision is usually given to the inmate verbally, after a few moments of deliberation.
The written reasons must also indicate, in sufficient detail, the information which was used to arrive at the decision or recommendation.
The quality of the decision-making process is enhanced by giving detailed reasons. Articulating clear reasons results in a more careful marshaling and weighing of the evidence, submissions and arguments.
In addition, the giving of reasons dispels any notion that the Board's conclusions might be frivolous or unfounded. Reasons provide a basis for future decision-making, reviews or appeals.
Step 12 - Reviews and Appeals
Existing review process includes:
- If an inmate is not satisfied with the decision of the institutional head, the inmate may submit a grievance directly to the head of the region (CCRA s.90; CCRR 75(b)).
- The head of the region, or a staff member in the regional headquarters who is designated by the head of the region, must review an inmate's case at least once every 60 days to determine whether, based on the considerations set out in section 31 of the Act, administrative segregation of the inmate continues to be justified.
- An inmate may pursue judicial review by a provincial superior court or the Federal Court at any time in the process.
Potential review process may include:
- A review body might be enabled at the institutional or regional level to make recommendations to the institutional head, regional head or Commissioner on the appropriateness of administrative segregation decisions. This review body could include external representatives who have legal training and/or expertise in the administrative decision-making process.
- the review body should be enabled to review decisions expeditiously and their recommendations should carry significant weight with the Service.
The issue of Legal Counsel as currently exists:
When the potential consequences to an inmate's rights or interests are sufficiently serious, the issues are sufficiently complex, and it is not too operationally inconvenient, the decision-maker ought to favourably consider an inmate's request to have a lawyer present. The assistance of legal counsel may be required by the duty to act fairly, in order to make "effective" representations more likely.
In the serious disciplinary process:
- "The person who conducts a hearing... shall give the inmate... a reasonable opportunity at the hearing to (a) question witnesses through the person conducting the hearing, introduce evidence, call witnesses on the inmate's behalf and examine exhibits and documents to be considered in the taking of the decision; and (b) make submissions during all phases of the hearing..."(CCRR 31)
- "The Service shall ensure that an inmate... is given a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct legal counsel for the hearing, and that the inmate's legal counsel is permitted to participate in the proceedings to the same extent as an inmate....." (CCRR 31)
As existing in the parole process:
- "[The NPB] shall permit the offender to be assisted by a person of the offender's choice... [who] is entitled (a) to be present at the hearing at all times when the offender is present, (b) to advise the offender throughout the hearing, and (c) to address, on behalf of the offender, the members of the Board conducting the hearing at times they adjudge to be conducive to the effective conduct of the hearing." (CCRA s.140(7)&(8))
- The current state of the law is not clear what the exact role and extent of participation by legal counsel may be in a SRB hearing. It may be as formal as that in the existing serious disciplinary hearings, or as basic as the existing parole hearing "assistants". Offenders have a right to legal counsel at NPB revocation and detention hearings.
Annex 2: Preliminary Guidelines for Procedural Review
| Sub-population | Definition | Principles |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary Segregation | Under CCRA, s.44, an inmate who is found guilty of a serious disciplinary offense is liable, in accordance with the regulations made under paras. 96(i), (f), (j) to be restricted in his/her freedom of movement as sanctioned by an Independent Chairperson. | All reasonable steps must be taken to resolve a matter informally, where possible. Section 40 of the CCRA defines 19 disciplinary offences. Written notice of the charge, stating the evidence in support of the charge and whether the charge is serious or minor, must be provided in accordance with the Regulations. The role and authority of the Independent Chairperson are described in s. 24(1) of the Regulations. The key elements of fairness are set out in the description of the hearing and assure the high standard of proof that is required (s. 43 of the CCRA and ss. 27-33 of the Regulations). The right of the inmate to legal counsel is established in s. 31(2), CCRA. Section 44 of the CCRA limits the sanctions that can be imposed. |
| Administrative Segregation | This measure involves a decision to remove the inmate from the open and/or special treatment population and place the inmate in a designated area of the institution under strict supervision in a structured and controlled setting. Inmates can only be segregated if one of the three legislative criteria outlined in s. 31(3) of the CCRA is met, and when no reasonable alternatives exist. | The law and policy provide a clear set of options to segregate inmates for legitimate reasons and impose strict requirements for the timely review of segregation cases and reintegration of offenders. These principles are discussed in this report and other documents provided by the Task Force. |
| Enhanced Units/Safe House (Women Offenders) | Women offenders in FSW institutions can be removed from the open population and/or special treatment population and placed in a designated area of the institution under (strict) supervision in a structured and controlled setting. This may be done either voluntarily and/or involuntarily and is subject to the same sections of the CCRA as above. The location can also be used for assessment, reception and for special needs purposes. (Refer to sections on assessment/reception and treatment units below) | The rules governing the placement and treatment of women offenders in enhanced units and the safe house for purposes of administrative and/or disciplinary segregation are analogous to those set out above. Notwithstanding these rules, the Task Force underlines that it is essential to adopt the principles that figured prominently in the findings and recommendations of the Arbour Report. These principles create important distinctions in the use of segregation for women. In particular, the emphasis on alternatives to segregation and the effect of segregation on women offenders must be emphasized in institutional rules. These points represent only a few of the features which distinguish enhanced units from traditional segregation. There is a need for a further review to ensure that the management of these units is in line with the goals defined in the FSW approach (Choices). |
| Special Handling Unit (SHU) | Dangerous inmates are separated from the general inmate population. An inmate is considered for placement in the SHU when he causes or commits an act causing serious harm or death or has shown a propensity for serious violence (CD 551, Special Handling Unit, para.7). SHUs are an alternative to long-term segregation and are designed to provide better conditions of confinement and access to association, services and programs. | CSC's policy has been established, in part, to pre-empt the use of long-term segregation of inmates who meet SHU criteria through the use of intensive supervision and programming to promote reintegration into maximum security populations. It therefore follows that SHU placement should not be more restrictive or provide less effective administrative fairness than would be provided during long-term segregation. While in the SHU, each inmate should be provided the rights, privileges and conditions of confinement that his individual circumstances warrant. |
| Co-located Unit (Women Offenders) | Federally-sentence women with maximum security classifications are housed In separate facilities in CSC institutions for men. They are entitled to the rights, privileges and conditions of confinement afforded to women in the general inmate population. | |
| Assessment/Reception Unit | Inmates are separated at the time of admission and/or post suspension for safety and security concerns, pending the acquisition and evaluation of information which will permit placement in the general inmate and/or other appropriate population. | In keeping with the principle of achieving early integration of separated inmates, each unit must attempt to acquire relevant information as soon as possible. Once new, relevant information is obtained, it should immediately relax any existing restrictions and improve the provision of effects/services to a level consistent with any security or safety considerations which continue to exist. These adjustments may involve increased association with other inmates in the unit, access to programs, cell effects, visits etc., integration to another population in the institution or transfer to another institution with more suitable supervision. Continued accommodation in the unit, and the restrictions imposed there, cannot be justified by purely administrative concerns such as the convenience of Parole Board hearings; continuity of placement during assessment, or inconvenience with respect to provision of services and effects. Measures should be in place to ensure that changes in security status are identified and acted upon in a timely fashion. This should be a subject of regular management reviews. Particular attention should be paid to undue delays in the acquisition of information from CSC and from outside sources. Such delays must be the object of immediate corrective measures by appropriate levels of management. As well, inmates who believe that their circumstances should be changed should have voluntary access to the segregation review process. |
| Group Lock-down/Lock-up | Confinement of a group of inmates (may include a unit) in their cells is used in response to a crisis; to facilitate a search to provide effective supervision when insufficient staff are available or to temporarily separate groups of inmates to resolve minor conflicts or misbehaviours. | The administrative process for this sub-population is not governed by the legal/policy framework defined for administrative segregation. With respect to recurring situations such as the lock-down of unemployed inmates, emphasis must be placed on reducing and removing restrictions on association; access to programs, etc., even if this means the medium and/or long-term commitment of resources through reallocation strategies. Some forms of group lock-down are part of normal institutional procedures, e.g. at night, for counts, etc. The extent to which restrictions can be applied should be determined through comparisons with groups of inmates for whom similar supervisory concerns apply, e.g. lock-down of inmates when they are not at their regular jobs. Restrictions on association within the unit and outside the unit should be based on security considerations (the need to provide adequate supervision). (Lock-downs in emergency circumstances) The supervisory decision to effect a temporary lock-down/lock-up must be validated by the institutional head as soon as possible after the initiation of the lock-down/lock-up. This situation should be continuously monitored with a view to modifying the conditions of the lock-down/lock-up and/or terminating it. Restrictions on association within the group and with inmates outside the group should be limited to those necessary to provide appropriate supervision. Restrictions on association should be lessened as the conduct of the group allows or the capacity for supervision permits. Access to less restrictive conditions of confinement, services and effects should be maximized and enhanced as soon as feasible. Administrative fairness, including the right to access inmate representatives, must be provided following initial or subsequent restrictions on liberty. The time-frames and procedures of the segregation review process are a logical remedy where inmates feel that a lock-down has continued too long or imposes overly restrictive conditions. While the above procedures will obviously be tempered by the safety or security requirements of a given situation, the existence of these limitations should be shown to have been continuously monitored and confirmed by management. (Routine Group Lock-ups) Day lock-up as a routine alternative for unemployed inmates may be justified by basic operational requirements when the control and appropriate supervision of these inmates cannot be reasonably accommodated in other less restrictive ways. The rationale for locking-up unemployed inmates has to take into account the methods of managing other inmates who might be off work on rest days or not attending a specific program, for example, a kitchen crew can maintain general association in its unit. Again, the segregation review process is an effective remedy for inmates who wish to contest such measures. |
| Special Housing Unit (Transitional Units) | Consideration should be given to reviewing the benefits of creating units that are less restrictive than administrative segregation for the following groups: selected long-term, voluntarily segregated inmates; inmates who require greater support before being returned to the general inmate population from administrative segregation; and/or transferred to another institution; and inmates awaiting release to the community. | When grounds for segregation are no longer justified and the inmate has been assessed as requiring more intense support for successful reintegration into either the general inmate population or the community, the possibility of temporarily moving the inmate into a transitional unit should be examined. This unit should involve the least restrictive conditions consonant with each inmate's security and safety status. The unit should be subjected to reviews as recommended for assessment and reception units. |
| Individual (cell/room) Lock-up | Confinement of an inmate in his/her cell or room is used as a temporary (usually during one shift) separation from the open population to resolve minor conflicts or misbehaviours. | This measure is generally accepted as a kind of informal discipline, provided that it is used as such, and not, in fact, for more serious reasons which justify traditional segregation. As soon as it is clear that the duration, frequency, or circumstances of the lock-up reflect administrative segregation, rather than a temporary (usually no longer than the current shift) placement to encourage better behaviour or avoid escalated conflict, then the rules respecting traditional segregation should apply. When lock-up occurs, there should be a record of the reason(s) why a less restrictive option was not used (perhaps in the form of a brief observation report). The inmate should be given the opportunity to contest the placement to the supervisor of the Correctional Officer who made the decision, and have this recorded in the observation report. The response to this rebuttal should also be included in the observation report. Management should conduct timely reviews of the validity of each placement and of the ongoing propriety of the use of this mechanism by staff. |
| Split Population | These are groupings of inmates who associate freely among themselves but are denied association with the general inmate population, for reasons common to the group and related to safety and security considerations. These populations are virtually managed as separate institutions, except for the occasional requirement to carryout activities in association with other sub-populations with whom they share common resources. Units such as Unit 3 at Atlantic Institution and populations at Kent and Donnacona institutions fall into this category. | Rules should be in place that allow for the review of individual placements. On-going reviews should be conducted by the institution of the services, programs, and conditions of confinement to demonstrate that they maximize liberty, association and reintegration into the general inmate population, at the earliest possible opportunity. Consideration should be given to making a formal review available to inmates who formally seek reintegration into the general inmate population. In addition, the status of inmates who want to remain in these populations should be reviewed to determine whether continued placement in the unit and the services and programs that are being provided meet the needs of the inmate. Otherwise, the segregation review remedy should be available for involuntary placements. |
| Treatment Units | Inmates requiring medical and/or psychological treatment, in response to physical and behavioural needs, are placed in these units. The purpose for using this type of separation is to treat individual case needs, while allowing for limited association, in order to prepare the inmate for return to the open population at the earliest possible opportunity. | The rules applying to separation within treatment units are analogous to those set out for
Regional Treatment/Psychiatric Centres. The following principles should be considered regarding placement
(usually voluntary), provision of services, and release from these units:
|
| Regional Treatment/ Psychiatric Centres | Inmates are sent to special institutions for psychiatric assessment and/or treatment (CD 540, para. 17).Two types of centres exist - one that is defined as a CSC institution and subject to the provisions of the CCRA/CCRR and a second that is defined as a provincial hospital subject to the provisions of mental health legislation. | Inmates in these centres are usually temporarily placed on a voluntary basis for specific and
limited programming purposes. Three sets of legislative rules apply to placement in such units:
Provincial rules are applicable only when the treatment centre is designated as a hospital under provincial jurisdiction. These rules are also the basis for involuntary treatment of inmates. If an inmate is placed involuntarily in a treatment centre for other than treatment purposes, this must be justified and reviewed under federal rules. Specific procedural considerations respecting the above are set out under "Treatment Units". It is with respect to isolation of patients within these units that the most perplexing legal/policy issues arise. CCRA and provincial treatment rules apply to the use of isolation - separation from other patients and staff for treatment purposes. If the central purpose of isolation is to promote safety and security (order) for all patients in the unit or program, which is not considered to be a treatment objective, then isolation should be considered to be for non-treatment purposes and administrative segregation review rules should therefore apply. If the inmate consents to the isolation and the isolation is for a valid treatment purpose, any future challenge to the isolation by the inmate should be governed by both provincial and CSC rules governing treatment and any dispute settlement would occur in that context. If the inmate does not consent to treatment-centered isolation, but is certified for involuntary treatment under provincial legislation, then, rules governing treatment apply (CCRA and provincial). If the inmate is not certified and (1) does not consent to isolation (whether or not it is for treatment purposes) or (2) is not engaged in any treatment, the CCRA rules on administrative segregation apply. If the isolation is not for treatment purposes, then, the CCRA rules on segregation apply. Note: if a patient is temporarily isolated for disruptive behaviour (etc.) outside the treatment context, the rules with respect to Individual (cell/room) Lock-up may be applicable. The rules governing isolation of patients under the CCRA will have to be reviewed with respect to the issue of consent to treatment. They should permit appropriate access to review of such decisions, bearing in mind the requirements of effective treatment and administrative fairness which characterize provincial rules. There will always be cases when it is unclear whether isolation is segregation or treatment. Management must therefore be prepared to provide immediate review of these circumstances and to provide patients with access to the protections provided under the segregation review process for this purpose. |
| General Inmate Population | These are inmates housed in the institution on the basis of their security classification and/or the criteria for placement as specified in s. 28 of the CCRA. They can freely associate with other inmates; have access to programs and services and conditions of confinement defined for the safety and security of the institution. | N/A |
