By Thia James

Same-sex inmate couple fight to live together at Riverbend

Dec 4, 2013 | 11:04 AM

A Court of Queen’s Bench judge in Prince Albert dismissed an application for an unconditional release filed by two Riverbend Institution inmates fighting to live together.

The inmates, Jean Richer and Leslie Sinobert, filed the application with the court, complaining their Charter rights were violated by Riverbend officials who wouldn’t allow them to live in the same unit at the minimum security institution.

In early November, Justice Mona Dovell dismissed their application with costs to be taxed, and wrote that the rights violation claim could not be used to challenge administrative decisions made by corrections officials.

“…Habeas corpus cannot be used to review the way the Correctional Service of Canada manages an inmate’s sentence as is the case here. Habeas corpus is a guarantee of liberty, not a channel for drawing our court into the day-to-day management of a prison.”

Richer and Sinobert are involved in what was described as a “long-standing” relationship. They were both serving life or indeterminate sentences at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary in medium security, but were transferred to Riverbend earlier in 2013.

SIGA

SIGA and Northern Lights Casino main sponsors of the 31st PAGC Fine Arts Festival

17h ago

Workplace incident

City of Prince Albert pleads guilty to workplace safety violation, handed fines

19h ago

Lighting it up

P.A.'s Zablocki leads Regina to victory on Day 4 at Esso Cup

Apr 24, 2024

Sinobert suffers from Minamata disease and has suffered three strokes since 1993, and lives in a housing unit designed for inmates with “mental-health issues.” A week after arriving at Riverbend, Richer submitted a request to reside with Sinobert at the same housing unit at the institution.

The request was denied. According to Riverbend Institution’s inmate policy, the inmates aren’t allowed in any housing unit but their own – but they can see each other in common areas.

The manager of assessment and intervention, Darcy Begrand, responded to their request.

“No promises were made that you could move into Sinobert’s house. His house is specifically for inmates with mental health needs. You and Sinobert have ample opportunity to visit and socialize in the AM, after work and on weekends, outside of the minimum security houses,” he wrote.

Dovell wrote that Sinobert and Richer should have followed the grievance process available to inmates. She noted that Richer had previously filed a grievance in 2007. “It is not that Richer does not know the proper procedure; he has chosen not to follow it as he finds the grievance process frustrating and time consuming. It may very well be all those things, but it is a process that must be followed as opposed to applying to this court for a remedy.”

But she wrote that even if the court did have jurisdiction over this application filed by Richer and Sinobert, it would have “failed in any event.”

She said they didn’t show they haven’t been deprived of liberty, and the corrections officials have shown that any possible deprivation of liberty would have been lawful.

“Not every constraint on an inmate amounts to a ‘deprivation of liberty.’”

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames