Any substantive changes in this Legislative Summary that have been made since the preceding issue are indicated in bold print.
Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act,1 was introduced by the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in the House of Commons on 16 October 2018.
On 23 October 2018, after second reading, the bill was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for study. On 29 November 2018, the Committee made more than 30 amendments to the bill2 and tabled a report with two recommendations.3 Moreover, nine other amendments were adopted at report stage in the House of Commons on 26 February 2019.4 The bill passed third reading on 18 March 2019.
Bill C-83 was introduced in the Senate, where it received first reading on 19 March 2019. After passing second reading, it was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology on 2 May 2019. On 30 May 2019, the Committee tabled a report with 11 amendments and its observations.5 The Senate adopted the Committee report and passed the bill without further amendment at third reading on 12 June 2019. A message was sent to the House of Commons the same day.
The House of Commons considered the Senate’s amendments on 14, 19 and 20 June 2019 and concurred in a motion approving (in whole or in part) three amendments, replacing (in whole or in part) five amendments and rejecting (in whole or in part) six amendments.6 As the Senate did not insist on its amendments, the bill subsequently received Royal Assent on 21 June 2019.
The purpose of the bill is to strengthen the federal correctional system in a number of ways. These include:
The proposed amendments regarding administrative segregation are intended, in part, to respond to the decisions of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Her Majesty the Queen, and the decisions of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal for British Columbia in British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Canada (Attorney General).7 According to these decisions, which will be examined in greater detail below, certain practices related to the administrative segregation of federal inmates violate sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).8
It is important to note that Bill C-83 was introduced more than a year after Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, was tabled in the House of Commons on 19 June 2017.9 Bill C-56, which has only passed the first reading stage, proposes to limit the use of administrative segregation and to implement an independent external review process in cases where administrative segregation is maintained beyond certain periods. Further to an amendment adopted at report stage in the House of Commons, Bill C-83 now provides that an independent external decision-maker determines, at the end of the review process, whether an inmate should remain in a structured intervention unit.
Lastly, it should be noted that Bill C-83 also makes a change in terminology to a provision of the English version of the Criminal Records Act (clause 37).
In Canada, two types of confinement are currently used to isolate10 inmates from the general (or mainstream) inmate population. The first type, disciplinary segregation, is used in the case of a serious disciplinary offence.11 Under section 44(1)(f) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (the Act),12 an independent chairperson appointed pursuant to the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (the Regulations) may impose disciplinary segregation on an inmate found guilty of this type of offence for a maximum of 30 days with or without restrictions on visits with family, friends and other persons from outside the penitentiary. When an inmate has been convicted of more than one serious disciplinary offence,13 and the sentences are to be served consecutively, the maximum period of segregation is a total of 45 days (section 40(2) of the Regulations). Disciplinary segregation can only be imposed as a punishment for a serious disciplinary offence, by an independent chairperson following a disciplinary hearing. Details on the appointment of independent chairpersons, disciplinary hearing procedures and notice to inmates of disciplinary charges requirements, as well as guidance regarding sanctions, are provided for in the Regulations and Commissioner’s Directive 580.
The second type of confinement, known as administrative segregation, is provided for in sections 31 to 37 of the Act. This type of segregation can be either voluntary (requested by the inmate) or involuntary (imposed by Correctional Service Canada [CSC]). Unlike disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation is not considered a punishment. According to the Act, it is a measure of last resort that can be taken only when the institutional head is satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative. The purpose of this type of segregation “is to maintain the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person by not allowing an inmate to associate with other inmates” (section 31(1) of the Act). There are only three grounds that can justify confining an inmate in administrative segregation. These are set out in section 31(3) of the Act:
The conditions of confinement for inmates in administrative segregation are identical to those of inmates in disciplinary segregation. Under section 37 of the Act,
an inmate in administrative segregation has the same rights and conditions of confinement as other inmates, except for those that
- can only be enjoyed in association with other inmates; or
- cannot be enjoyed due to
- limitations specific to the administrative segregation area, or
- security requirements.
In contrast to disciplinary segregation, the Act does not prescribe a maximum duration of voluntary or involuntary administrative segregation. CSC is simply required by law to return the inmate to the general inmate population at the earliest appropriate time (section 31(2) of the Act). CSC is also required to regularly conduct hearings to review involuntary administrative segregation cases.
Section 33 of the Act deals in general terms with the initial and regular reviews that are required in cases of involuntary administrative segregation. The requirements for such reviews are set out in sections 19 to 23 of the Regulations. Pursuant to section 20 of the Regulations, the institutional head must review, within one working day after the confinement, the case of an inmate who has been involuntarily confined in administrative segregation and must confirm the confinement, or order that the inmate be returned to the general inmate population. Within five working days, a segregation review board, made up of CSC personnel, must review the case. The board is then required to review the case every 30 days for as long as the inmate is confined in administrative segregation (section 21 of the Regulations). The Regulations also provide for the review of all cases of administrative segregation (voluntary or involuntary) by the head of the region, or by the staff member in the regional headquarters who is designated by the head of the region, at least once every 60 days in order to determine whether the inmate should remain in administrative segregation.
Cases of inmates confined in administrative segregation voluntarily by a designated staff member must also be reviewed by the institutional head within one working day after the confinement to confirm the confinement or order the release of the inmate to the general inmate population (section 23 of the Regulations).
Under the Act, all inmates in administrative segregation must be visited at least once every day by a registered health care professional (section 36(1) of the Act). Furthermore, the institutional head must visit the administrative segregation area at least once every day and, upon request, meet with individual inmates confined in this area (section 36(2) of the Act).
Guidance for the use of administrative segregation can also be found in Commissioner’s Directive 70914 and the Administrative Segregation Guidelines.15 These offer more information about the purpose and process of administrative segregation, procedural safeguards, as well as the review and appeals process. In particular, it is provided that, upon placement in administrative segregation, an inmate shall be informed of the right to legal counsel without delay and shall have a reasonable opportunity to challenge their segregation status. In addition, a mental health professional, or other mental health staff under the supervision of a mental health professional, shall provide a written opinion on the inmate’s mental health status within the first 25 days of the inmate’s placement in administrative segregation and once every subsequent 60 days.
Inmates placed in segregation (“solitary confinement”) are deprived, to various degrees, of human contact and recreational activities, making the conditions of incarceration in segregation more stringent than for inmates in the general population. As a result, segregation is often considered an extreme form of incarceration, “a prison within a prison.”
Since the 1970s, various reports and studies have raised concerns regarding the impact of solitary confinement on the inmates, and compliance and procedural fairness issues. These publications include the following:
More recently, the use of administrative segregation has been called into question by two cases: Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Her Majesty the Queen and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Canada (Attorney General). In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged that the administrative segregation provisions of the Act violated certain Charter rights and asked that a declaration of invalidity pursuant to section 52 of the Charter be granted. It is important to note that these cases are not identical and that sometimes distinct arguments were put forward.
In Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Her Majesty the Queen, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found, in its 18 December 2017 decision, that a high degree of procedural fairness is required in involuntary segregation decisions.23 In particular, the Court found that the provisions of the Act concerning the review of decisions beyond five working days do not ensure sufficient procedural safeguards under section 7 of the Charter.24 In its decision, the Court held that the institutional head is the authority that both makes and reviews decisions. However, the Court suspended its declaration of invalidity for 12 months. The Court of Appeal for Ontario then extended the suspension of the declaration of invalidity to 30 April 2019, and again to 17 June 2019.25
On appeal, the Attorney General of Canada did not contest the declaration of invalidity ordered by the Superior Court under section 7 of the Charter. However, on 28 March 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled on new arguments and found that placement in administrative segregation for more than 15 consecutive days infringed section 12 of the Charter.26 This provision protects individuals against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. This new declaration of invalidity was to take effect 15 days from the date of the release of this judgment. On 9 April 2019, the Attorney General of Canada filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as a motion for a stay of execution of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.27 Justice Côté, for the Supreme Court, issued a first decision on 11 April 2019, granting an interim stay of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision of 28 March 2019. Justice Côté subsequently issued a second decision on 14 June 2019 granting an interim extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. These two orders will remain in force pending the determination of the motion for an extension and a stay.
In British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v. Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of British Columbia concluded, in its 17 January 2018 decision, that administrative segregation is a form of solitary confinement that places federal inmates at significant risk of serious psychological harm, self-harm and suicide, particularly for those with mental health problems.28 The Court also found that the provisions in question contravened sections 7 and 15 of the Charter. Among the reasons cited in paragraph 609 of its decision, the Court held that these provisions on administrative segregation
In this case as well, the Court suspended its declaration of invalidity for 12 months. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia responded to the government’s application to extend this suspension of invalidity by granting two extensions: one to 17 June 2019 and a second to 28 June 2019.29
On 24 June 2019, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia ruled on the merits of the appeal.30 In its decision, it upheld the findings of the trial judge to the effect that the provisions in question violate section 7 of the Charter. However, the Court of Appeal found that these provisions do not violate section 15 of the Charter. It further held that CSC had breached its obligations in various ways as regards inmates placed in administrative segregation (see paras. 269 to 271 of the decision). The Court noted that CSC had not taken into account the special needs of mentally ill or disabled inmates, and that it had not ensured that inmates were given a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel without delay. All declarations of invalidity were suspended to 30 November 2019, the coming-into-force date for a number of provisions of Bill C-83.31
Bill C-83 contains 43 clauses. The following description examines certain aspects of the bill but does not review each of its provisions. Amendments whose main purpose is to modernize or update the terminology used in the Act are not covered in detail.
Changes to the bill include amendments to sections 4 and 101 of the Act (as amended), which set out the principles that guide CSC and the Parole Board of Canada. Specifically, section 4(c) requires CSC to use the “least restrictive” measures consistent with the protection of society, staff members and offenders. It also stipulates that CSC must consider alternatives to custody in a penitentiary and ensure the effective delivery of programs with a view to promoting rehabilitation. Section 101(c) states that the Parole Board of Canada make the “least restrictive” determinations consistent with the protection of society.32 This principle is also reiterated in section 28 of the Act (as amended), stating that the penitentiary in which a person is confined shall provide the least restrictive environment for that person, taking into account the factors specified in the Act.
Another change is the addition to section 4(g) of the Act (as amended) of the following factors that CSC’s correctional policies, programs and practices must respect and be responsive to: religious differences, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and the special needs of visible minorities.
Clause 10 replaces the provisions of the Act concerning administrative segregation with provisions on the creation of “structured intervention units” (new sections 31 to 37.91). The use of administrative segregation is thus replaced by these new structured intervention units. However, some of the new provisions described below are similar to what is currently provided for in administrative segregation.
It should be noted that several aspects of this new system will need to be accompanied by corresponding commissioner’s directives and regulations. As a result, it is difficult to assess in detail how structured intervention units will differ from administrative segregation.
Under new section 31 of the Act, a structured intervention unit (SIU) is a penitentiary or any area in a penitentiary designated as such by the CSC Commissioner (the Commissioner). According to the government, an SIU will “provide the necessary resources and expertise to address the safety and security risks of inmates who cannot be managed safely within the mainstream inmate population.”33 New section 32(1) of the Act reflects these objectives by stipulating two specific purposes, which are to
- provide an appropriate living environment for an inmate who cannot be maintained in the mainstream inmate population for security or other reasons; and
- provide the inmate with an opportunity for meaningful human contact and an opportunity to participate in programs and to have access to services that respond to the inmate's specific needs and the risks posed by the inmate.
New section 32(2) provides that the “opportunity to interact through human contact” is not mediated or interposed by physical barriers such as bars, security glass, door hatches or screens. If such interactions are mediated or interposed, CSC must record them (new section 32(3)).
As mentioned earlier, pursuant to the Act, the current purpose of administrative segregation is “to maintain the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person by not allowing an inmate to associate with other inmates.” [Authors' emphasis]
The bill makes several amendments to allow for the transfer of inmates to the new structured intervention units.
First, clause 7 amends section 29 of the Act with respect to transfers. Currently, only transfers to another penitentiary, provincial correctional facility or hospital are possible under this provision. The amended version of section 29 of the Act now makes it possible to transfer inmates, within the same penitentiary, to another area with a different security classification. It also specifies that transfers to a hospital, including any mental health facility, may be authorized. Moreover, clause 8 adds section 29.1 to the Act, in order to allow the Commissioner to assign a security clearance to each penitentiary or to any area in a penitentiary.
The bill adds new section 29.01(1), which allows a “staff member who holds a position lower in rank than that of institutional head and who is designated by the Commissioner” to authorize, in accordance with the relevant regulations, the transfer of a person into an SIU. New section 34 of the Act states that a transfer to an SIU can be made only if the designated staff member is satisfied that there is no reasonable alternative to the inmate’s confinement in a structured intervention unit and the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that
- the inmate has acted, has attempted to act or intends to act in a manner that jeopardizes the safety of any person or the security of a penitentiary and allowing the inmate to be in the mainstream inmate population would jeopardize the safety of any person or the security of the penitentiary;
- allowing the inmate to be in the mainstream inmate population would jeopardize the inmate's safety; or
- allowing the inmate to be in the mainstream inmate population would interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge under subsection 41(2) of a serious disciplinary offence.
These grounds are very similar to those set out in section 31(3) of the Act with regard to administrative segregation (see previously).
Moreover, CSC maintains a record of every instance in which an inmate is authorized to be transferred into an SIU indicating the reasons for granting the authorization and any alternative that was considered. The authorization for transfer and the reasons for it are provided orally to the inmate no later than one working day after the day on which the transfer was authorized, and in writing no later than two working days after the day on which the transfer was authorized (new sections 34(2) and 34(3)).
New section 35 of the Act states that an inmate in an SIU has the same rights as other inmates, except for those that cannot be exercised due to limitations specific to the structured intervention unit or security requirements. This provision is more or less identical to the content of section 37 of the Act regarding administrative segregation.
Moreover, new section 36 of the Act specifies the periods each day (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) during which an inmate must be given the opportunity to spend time outside his or her cell and interact with others, including to participate in programs. However, new section 37 of the Act provides for certain exceptions, including if the inmate refuses to avail themselves of the opportunities available under section 36, if the inmate does not comply with reasonable instructions, or in the prescribed circumstances, and those circumstances must be limited to what is reasonably required for security purposes (including natural disasters, fires, riots and work refusals under section 128 of the Canada Labour Code). CSC also maintains a register of instances that an inmate refused or was not given such an opportunity (new section 37(2)).
While an inmate is confined in such a unit, CSC must provide for the ongoing monitoring of the inmate’s health, including a visit at least once every day by a registered health care professional (new section 37.1 of the Act). Furthermore, CSC must ensure that the inmate’s case is referred to the portion of the Service that administers health care within 24 hours after the inmate is transferred into an SIU, for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the inmate. It should be noted that the current wording of section 36(1) of the Act also provides for a daily visit by a registered health care professional in the case of administrative segregation. Under new section 37.11, if it is determined that confinement in an SIU is negatively impacting the inmate’s health, the inmate’s case shall be referred to the sector of CSC that administers health care.
The bill provides several procedures for reviewing the decision to confine an inmate in an SIU. These procedures are derived from new section 33 of the Act, which provides that confinement in an SIU is to end as soon as possible (section 31(2) of the Act already provides that administrative segregation is to end “at the earliest appropriate time”). Many of the details of the review procedures that will apply remain unknown since they will be prescribed by regulation. This makes it difficult to assess whether sufficient procedural safeguards will be provided to inmates to address the concerns raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of British Columbia in their respective decisions, cited above.
The following section of this Legislative Summary provides a summary of the procedures for reviewing the decision to maintain an inmate in an SIU or to transfer an inmate into an SIU.
Decisions made by the institutional head, the Commissioner, “the committee” (described below) and the independent external decision-maker must be based on the criteria and factors set out in new sections 37.41 or 37.82. Under these provisions, an inmate should remain in an SIU only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a return to the mainstream inmate population would jeopardize the safety of the inmate or any other person or the security of the penitentiary or would interfere with an investigation that could lead to a criminal charge or a charge of a serious disciplinary offence. A review of the decision to maintain an inmate in an SIU or transfer an inmate into an SIU takes place in the following circumstances:
To ensure an offender’s correctional plan takes into account their mental health needs, new section 15.1(2.01) of the Act (clause 3) provides that, not later than the 30th day after an offender is received, the institutional head must refer the offender’s case to the portion of the Service that administers health care for the purpose of conducting a mental health assessment of the offender.
Under new section 15.1(2.1) of the Act, an offender’s correctional plan must be updated as soon as possible after the decision is made that they must remain in a structured intervention unit. This update must provide for a continuation in the delivery of correctional programs and in preparation for reintegration into the mainstream inmate population as soon as practicable.
Clause 11 simply eliminates the use of segregation for disciplinary purposes from the array of possible disciplinary sanctions. In addition, pursuant to clause 40, inmates subject to disciplinary segregation cease to be subject to it on the appropriate effective date. However, it should be noted that, when an inmate commits a serious offence that contravenes an Act of Parliament, CSC can always inform the appropriate police force so that an investigation can be carried out.34
Clauses 14 and 15 authorize a new type of search using body scanner technology to prevent the introduction of illegal substances into federal correctional institutions.35 This type of search (defined in amended section 46 of the Act) is conducted using a prescribed body scanner. However, the applicable procedure shall be prescribed by regulation. In cases prescribed by regulation and required for security purposes, the bill provides that inmates, visitors and officers may be subject to a body scan search. According to the government, these scanners, which are similar to those used at airports, are being used in several provincial correctional facilities.36 In addition, this technology would be less invasive than some other control methods, such as strip searches. Section 48 of the Act, on the routine strip search of inmates, now includes a new provision outlining that a body scan search of the inmate shall be conducted instead of a strip search, where possible.
The introduction of this new technology seems to be in response to the problems of ion scanners. In June 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security tabled a report in which it provided an overview of the situation.37 The report specifies in particular that “ion scanners are one of several tools used for preventing drugs from entering institutions.” [Emphasis in the original] The report also notes the findings of a review by the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) indicating that these devices may be “oversensitive and unreliable, and often produce … ‘false positive’ results.” In its 2016–2017 annual report, the OCI recommended that CSC conduct an evaluation of the use and reliability of ion mobility spectrometry devices.38 In response to this recommendation, CSC concluded, in its March 2018 report, that “the Ion Scanner, when used within the context of the law and applicable policies, results in positive impacts on the drug interdiction activities within the institutions.”39 In its report, CSC also concluded that ion mobility spectrometry devices “are the only reliable technology,” while specifying that these devices can “also produc[e] false positives and contamination may be an issue.”40
Clause 16 amends section 51 of the Act regarding the applicable search procedure when the institutional head has reasonable grounds to believe that an inmate has ingested or is concealing contraband in a body cavity. The bill removes the option of using X-rays, leaving only the possibility of confining the inmate in a dry cell (i.e., without any plumbing) in the expectation that the contraband will be expelled. New section 51(2) of the Act provides that the inmate shall be visited by a registered health care professional at least once a day.
Clauses 23 to 25 amend sections 79 to 84.1 of the Act pertaining to “Aboriginal Offenders.” This part of the Act is renamed “Indigenous Offenders.” Clause 23 replaces or adds the following definitions in section 79 of the Act:
These new definitions apply to new sections 79.1 to 84.1 of the Act, which pertain in particular to agreements for the provision of correctional services for Indigenous offenders and to the transfer or conditional release of offenders into Indigenous communities. This new terminology is repeated in the other provisions of this part of the Act.
In addition, new section 79.1(1) of the Act sets out factors that are to be considered in any decision affecting an Indigenous offender:
- systemic and background factors affecting Indigenous peoples of Canada;
- systemic and background factors that have contributed to the overrepresentation of Indigenous persons in the criminal justice system and that may have contributed to the offender's involvement in the criminal justice system; and
- the Indigenous culture and identity of the offender, including his or her family and adoption history.
However, these factors are not to be taken into consideration for decisions respecting the assessment of the risk posed by an Indigenous offender “unless those factors could decrease the level of risk” (new section 79.1(2)).
These criteria are similar to the sentencing principles set out in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which the Supreme Court has interpreted on various occasions (particularly in R. v. Gladue43).
Clause 5 adds section 19.1 to the Act, which provides that a quality of care review be conducted without delay if a registered health care professional advises CSC that they have reasonable grounds to believe the death of an inmate is from a natural cause. This review is to be performed by a registered health care professional, who then provides a report to the Commissioner. A copy of the review report is then to be given to the Correctional Investigator.
The definition of “health care” set out in section 85 of the Act is amended by clause 26, which adds that such care may also be provided by persons acting under the supervision of registered health care professionals.
Section 86 of the Act pertaining to CSC’s obligations to provide health care is amended by clause 27. While the current version of section 86(1)(b) specifies that CSC must provide “reasonable access to non-essential mental health care that will contribute to the inmate’s rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community,” the new wording refers to “non-essential health care.” However, it should be noted that CSC’s obligation to provide essential health care remains unchanged.
Moreover, clause 28 adds sections 86.1 to 86.4 to the Act. New section 86.1 of the Act states that CSC must support the professional autonomy and clinical independence of registered health care professionals in the provision of patient-centred care (medical care, dental care and mental health care) and ensure that their rights are respected. It is also important to note that a definition of “mental health assessment” is now included in section 2(1) of the Act. This new definition stipulates that the assessment must be conducted by a “medical professional with recognized specialty training in mental health diagnosis and treatment.”
Lastly, clause 30 adds section 89.1 to the Act. This new provision requires CSC to provide patient advocacy services in order to help patients better understand their rights and responsibilities related to health care. The addition of these types of services was one of the recommendations made in the Coroner’s Inquest into the death of Ashley Smith.44
Section 140(13) of the Act entitles a victim (or a person who suffered harm, damage or economic loss as the result of an act of an offender), on request, to listen to an audio recording of certain Parole Board of Canada hearings (with some exceptions45). The hearings in question are those provided for in sections 140(1)(a) and 140(1)(b), which are the first review for day parole and the reviews following an application for full parole. However, the current wording of section 140(13) of the Act limits this right to persons who did not attend these hearings. Clause 34 amends this provision by no longer limiting this right to the persons concerned who were absent from these hearings.
Clause 40.1 provides that a comprehensive review of the provisions enacted by Bill C-83 must be undertaken by a parliamentary committee at the start of the fifth year after the day on which this section comes into force.
Clause 41 contains three sets of provisions that come into force on days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.46 The other clauses (clauses 1, 2, 4 to 6, 8, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23 to 27, 31(3) and 32, and following) therefore come into force on the date of Royal Assent.
* Notice: For clarity of exposition, the legislative proposals set out in the bill described in this Legislative Summary are stated as if they had already been adopted or were in force. It is important to note, however, that bills may be amended during their consideration by the House of Commons and Senate, and have no force or effect unless and until they are passed by both houses of Parliament, receive Royal Assent, and come into force. [ Return to text ]
It is important to note that the terminology used to refer to the physical and social isolation of inmates from the general inmate population varies across jurisdictions. Moreover, different terms are used to refer to different types of isolation. For example, “disciplinary segregation” is commonly used when the removal of the inmate from normal daily contact with other inmates is a form of punishment for breaking prison rules, while “administrative segregation” is used when an inmate is isolated because he or she is deemed to be a risk for the safety of other inmates, prison staff or themselves, and “protective custody” is used to refer to the isolation of an inmate who is believed to be at risk in the general prison population (e.g., former police officer, child abusers, etc.). Other terms are also used in different jurisdictions, such as “temporary confinement” and “restrictive or secure housing unit.”
The term “solitary confinement” is generally applied in international fora to capture various forms of segregation including the segregation justified for security and disciplinary reasons. While there is no universally agreed-upon definition of the term “solitary confinement,” definitions provided by the Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules) are frequently cited. See United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) 
(372 KB, 38 pages).
The term “solitary confinement” is not found in the Canadian federal correctional system. Correctional Service Canada [CSC], in its Response to the Coroner’s Inquest Touching the Death of Ashley Smith, noted:
[T]he term solitary confinement is not accurate or applicable within the Canadian federal correctional system. Canadian law and correctional policy allows for the use of administrative segregation for the shortest period of time necessary, in limited circumstances, and only when there are no reasonable, safe alternatives.
See CSC, Response to the Coroner’s Inquest Touching the Death of Ashley Smith, Ottawa, December 2014.
[ Return to text ] (3.49 MB, 106 pages), Task Force Report, March 1997. It should be noted that the task force did not recommend immediate implementation of independent adjudication, but that CSC evaluate its potential benefits through a limited experiment. [ Return to text ] (1.96 MB, 84 pages), December 1997. [ Return to text ] (111 KB, 34 pages), 20 June 2008. [ Return to text ] (2.14 MB, 35 pages), Twenty-Fifth Report, 1st Session, 42nd Parliament, June 2018. [ Return to text ]© Library of Parliament