SECTOR 4:
CHAPTER 4
THE TASK FORCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION, 1996-97

The Arbour Report had an immediate effect when it was released in April 1996. The Commissioner of Corrections, John Edwards, tendered his resignation to the Solicitor General, and two months later Ole Ingstrup was appointed in his place. Mr. Ingstrup, who had held the position from 1988 to 1992, was the driving force behind the Service’s Mission Statement and had been at the helm during development and passage of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. One of Mr. Ingstrup’s first initiatives on his reappointment was to set up a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of the use of segregation. The mandate of the Task Force on Adminstrative Segration (commonly referred to as the Task Force on Segregation) was to address the recommendations and issues raised by the Arbour Report; to examine the extent to which the Arbour findings at the Prison for Women were applicable to other institutions; and to ensure both that all staff members and managers were knowledgeable about legal and policy requirements and that measures were in place to ensure continuing compliance with these.

Members of the Task Force on Segregation were drawn from both within and outside the Correctional Service. The outside membership consisted of the Office of the Correctional Investigator’s legal counsel, Todd Sloan, and two consultants, including myself. The chairperson was Dan Kane, who brought to the role extensive experience at the institutional, regional, and national levels. The Task Force adopted a three-phased approach to its work. In the first phase, a preliminary assessment was undertaken to measure how fully the operation of segregation units across the country complied with the basic procedural requirements set out in the CCRA, the CCR Regulations and the Commissioner’s Directives. Small audit teams visited each institution with a segregation unit to review the documentation relating to its operation, as well as a small sample taken from the files of segregated prisoners. Task Force members then visited each institution and were debriefed by the audit team regarding any deficiencies that had been noted, together with any "best practices" that could provide models for other institutions. At each institution, the Task Force met with managers and staff involved in segregation, and a representative from the CSC’s Legal Services gave an orientation lecture on the legal principles and provisions governing segregation. Task Force members toured each segregation unit and met with representatives from staff unions, inmate committees, and Native Brotherhoods. At the end of each visit, the warden, who had earlier received a copy of the audit team’s report, was asked to provide the Task Force with an action plan identifying measures to correct procedural deficiencies.

The second phase of the Task Force involved the completion of a "formal compliance audit," in which an audit team re-visited each institution to review the extent of its compliance with the procedural requirements relating to segregation (for example, those requiring written notice of the reasons for segregation and a hearing within five days). The Task Force’s third phase addressed policy, operational, and research issues relating to the fairness and effectiveness of the segregation process and reviewed the recommendations of the Arbour Report relating to independent adjudication.

Page 1 of 1