Table Of Content

00036334 Ontario Annual Report ■r ^■: * Mi .■■' The Guiding principle underlying parole decision-making holds the protection of society to be paramount. Additional copies of this report or more information about the Ontario Board of Parole may be obtained by contacting: The Ontario Board of Parole Office of the Chair 2195 Yonge Street Suite 201 Toronto, Ontario M4S 2B1 (416) 325-4480 The following publications are available, free of charge, from the Ontario Board of Parole: Ontario Board of Parole - The Facts Mission Statement, Values and Principles Victims and the Ontario Board of Parole Preparing Yourself for Parole Community Part-Time Membership Standards of Professional Conduct for Members of the Ontario Board of Parole ISSN 0847-1746 MINISTRY OF THH iATTORNFY general JUL 2 9 1^7 LAW LIBRARY His Honour The Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Ontario May it please Your Honour, For the information of Your Honour and members of the Legislative Assembly, 1 have the privilege of presenting to you the annual report of the Ontario Board of Parole for the year ending March 31, 1996. The report also includes major accomplishments and statistical information comparisons for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Respectfully submitted a Robert Runciman Minister The Honourable Robert Runciman Minister Sir, It is my pleasure to submit to you the annual report of the Ontario Board of Parole for 1995-96. The report highlights the major initiatives undertaken by the Board over the past two years. These initiatives demonstrate the committment by both staff and members to an Ontario parole system which contributes to public safety through the reintegration of offenders. Sincerely, Ken Sandhu Chair Ontario Board of Parole A . N :N,; U. , A J-JL ; -i E ,PV, O : R ' . /W: : V, 9 9 6 Table of Contents Board Members.2 Message from the Chair.3 Mission Statement.4 Organizational Chart.5 Overview of the Board.6 Correctional Institutions under Board Regions.7 Major Achievements.8 Fiscal Overview. 10 Workload and Decision Statistics. 11 t 1 Board Members March 31, 1996 Chair Senior Members Full-Time Members (Acting) SANDHU, Ken S. DEGUIRE, Patricia NICHOLAS, Carleen ALLISON, G. William ROBERTSON, Wendy MacNEVIN, Ed SAUVE, Ursula MIEES, Gordon TARET ON, J onathan MURPHY, Dennis W. VSETUEA, Claudia WATT, Maril)m WILEIAMS, Doug Community Part-Time Members AHARA, Roslyn FORBES, Cathrym Eaurie OVERGAARD, Eynda BASSE, Harold FOURNIER, Kathr>m Ann PACE, Raphael BEEEGKY, Valerie FRAGOMENI, Franco PAQUETTE, Jack BERI, Sudershen Kumar GORDON, Anne Marie PARKINSON, May L. BEST, Jo-Anne GOUGH, Patricia PEER, Eiisa BEACKBURN, Euston Eionel GRAHAM, John K. PRESTON, Gar)' BONDY, Carrie Louise HARRISON, Carol)m RACICOT, Brian Joseph BOOMSMA, Martin HIETON, Edward RICE, Arthur BOULTER, Derek C. HAYES, Matthew Wallace RUSSEEE, Ian BRAGAGNOLO, Cheryl JACKSON, Thomas Donaghue RUSSELE, James R. BRYANT, Herbert KIDDEE, Elizabeth Rose SCHRAM,Jim BURNETT, Susan KIRK-MONTGOMERY, Allison SEYMOUR, Joe P BURNHAM, Nina KRAMER, Gerr)^J. SMITH, Graham W. BURR, David A. EACHAPELEE, Hector Joseph SPRIGGS, John Evan CHAMANDY, Michael EEPAGE, Ghislaine STEWART, Richard COUSINEAU, Yolande Y. EUCAS, Gerald TOMLINSON, Maurice Edward CURRIE, James Wilson McCALEION, Margaret UPPAE, Krishan D. DAWSON, Earr)^ McFADDEN, Gw)meth VIEEENEUVE, Victor DEGROOT, Ralph McKAY, Hugh Bryan WATSON, Autumn DOWNEY, Marie Anne MANSEAU, Robert WHELAN, Margaret Mar)' DUFOUR, Arlette E. MARRIOT, Carol Margaret WRIGHT, Anna Elmberg DUPUIS, Merwin MIEEINER, Bonnie E. WRIGHT, Elaine R. PERRIER, Wm H. NOLAN, v Barrer FITZGERAED, Patrick Stanley O’DONNELL, Peter Thomas 2 Message from the Chair I am pleased to offer my remarks on the 1994-95 direction towards the overall improvement of the and 1995-96 fiscal years in my relatively new quality of parole decisions made by the Ontario capacity as Chair of the Ontario Board of Parole, Board of Parole. Highlights include the an appointment which was confirmed in development of an internal review process to September 1995. While always in the public monitor serious parolee re-offending, increasing eye to some extent because of the nature of our the amount of police information available to work, the last two years have been highlighted by Board members on serious cases and unprecedented publicity for the Ontario Board of appointments of both full-time and community Parole. The October 1993 murder of a part-time members with extensive background in Sudbury police constable by an Ontario the criminal justice system. [ I recognize that it provincial parolee resulted in an investigation has been a challenging past two years for the Board ordered by the then Minister, David in many regards. 1 would like to take this Christopherson. The Wein Report, which opportunity to express my gratitude to all staff and examined the Board’s role in the events that led members who have rallied to maintain a high level up to the incident, was released to the public in of integrity and efficiency in the performance of March of 1995 when court proceedings against their duties. 1 am especially thankful to all sitting the accused were completed. During the members who have demonstrated the ability to summer of 1994, the Provincial Auditor began an remain focussed on the difficult task of parole audit of the Ontario Board of Parole which was last decision-making. audited in 1989. The objective of the audit was to Finally, 1 would like to acknowledge the tremendous assess whether adequate procedures were in place willingness on the part of our colleagues in the to ensure that Board decisions were made with due Correctional Services Division to cooperate and consideration to minimizing risk to society and work together with the Board towards the assisting in the community re-integration of improvement of the parole service as a whole. offenders. The Provincial Auditor’s Report with its recommendations was released in November of 1995. In October of 1995, the Solicitor ^ General and Minister of Correctional Services, Robert Runciman, appointed Douglas Drinkwalter Ken Sandhu to examine the operations and mandate of the Chair Ontario Board of Parole with a view to making recommendations concerning the future delivery of parole services in Ontario. The report has not yet been finalized. Many of the initiatives described in the annual report are in response to the Wein Report, the Provincial Auditor’s Report and, more directly, to the current government’s 3 1 Mission Statement of the Ontario Board of Parole The Ontario Board of Parole is an integral part of the Canadian criminal justice system. It is responsible for the supervised conditional release of adult offenders sentenced to Ontario provincial correctional institutions. The community is represented on the Board and shares responsibility for making independent, fair and objective decisions within legislated criteria. The Board contributes to public safety by assessing risk, and by providing offenders with hope and the opportunity of becoming responsible members of society. 4 O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L CHART March 31, 1996 Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services Chair Executive Sr. Policy Vice-Chair Analyst Northern Eastern Southern Western Region Region Region Region Senior Senior Senior Senior Member Member Member Member 1 FTM 1 FTM 4 FTMs 3 FTMs 14 CPTMs . 15 CPTMs 19 CPTMs 22 CPTMs Systems Sr. Program Supervisor Operational Coordinator Analyst Services Order-in-Council Appointments Administration 13 Full-Time Appointees* 4 Corporate Staff 70 Part-Time Appointees** 27 Support Staff 83 31 * Includes Chair, Executive Vice-Chair, Senior Members, Full-Time Members. Full-Time Members (FTMs) are salaried employees whose primary responsibility is to chair hearings and case review meetings. At the close of the fiscal year, there were six vacancies: Executive Vice-Chair, Senior Member (Eastern Region) and a Full-Time Member in each of the four regions. ** Also referred to as Community Part-Time Members (CPTMs), they are paid on a per diem basis to participate in hearings and case review meetings. 5 Overview o E THE Board Mandate Hearing Process In Ontario, release of offenders from incarceration, The Board conducts hearings throughout the province at other than by nonnal expiration of sentence, is the provincial correctional institutions located in each of its responsibility of the Ontario Board of Parole. The four regions. A quorum of two members, usually Board is authorized by the federal Coirections and composed of one full-time member and one community Conditional Release Act and the Ministiy of part-time member, reviews all available information on Coirectional Seiyices Act and Regulations to each case, interviews the offender and makes the decision consider for conditional release, under super\ision, to grant or deny parole, or to defer the decions to a later adult offenders who are ser\dng sentences of less date. In all cases, the Board must provide the reasons for than two years in provincial institutions. The the decision in writing to the offender. All hearings are guiding principle underlying parole decision¬ audiotaped. The Board allows assistants to be present making holds the protection of society to be at hearings to provide language interpretation, legal paramount. In the event of a parole grant advice or general assistance. In preparation for the decision, the Board sets the conditions for release hearing, the offender is allowed access to any relevant and parole may be revoked for non-compliance information on file which will be used by the Board in with these conditions. arriving at its decision. Victims may submit information for consideration by the Board in making its Parole Criteria decisions. This may be done in writing, by phone, in person at a Board regional office or at the correctional The Ontario Board of Parole considers criteria institution where the hearing is to take place. Upon outlined in the federal legislation which specifies request, victims are given information about the Board’s that the Board may grant parole if: the offender decision, reasons for the decision and special conditions will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to which directly relate to the victim. society before the expiration according to law of the sentence the offender is serving; and the Decision Review release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration An offender, who is aggrieved by the Board’s decision, of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen. may request a review of the decision by writing to the Chair. The Chair may either uphold the decision or order Eligibility a new hearing. A review of Board decisions or processes may also be initiated by the Ombudsman or the Offenders are eligible for conditional release upon Ontario Human Rights Commission at the request of an serving one-third of their sentence. Those serving offender. sentences of six months or more are automatically scheduled for an in-person hearing before the Board, while offenders sercang less than six months must apply in writing for parole consideration. 6