Solitary Confinement Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment Ontario Court Rules

Earlier this week, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment in two related class action lawsuits challenging Canada’s use of solitary confinement in prisons.

A three-member panel of appellate judges agreed with the lower court’s determination that administrative segregation, a practice akin to solitary confinement, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the prisoners’ rights. It agreed that Canada failed to heed warnings about the mental and physical harm caused by prolonged isolation.

Administrative segregation was reportedly used by correctional authorities as a last resort to protect inmates’ safety in prisons. Between 2011 and 2019, inmates were placed in isolation on 22,000 occasions and the average length of isolation was 59 days, according to court records.

Current international standards limit the acceptable length of isolation to a maximum of 15 days.

Christopher Brazeau serves as the representative plaintiff in one of the solitary confinement class action lawsuits, which challenges the isolation of mentally ill inmates in prisons.

The other solitary confinement class action lawsuit is led by Jullian Reddock and challenges the practice of placing prisoners in administrative segregation for 15 or more consecutive days.

“Canada chose to ignore repeated recommendations for some form of independent review of administrative segregation,” the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote. “Canada also continued to place inmates suffering from mental illness in administrative segregation, despite repeated warnings of the harm that this practice caused.”

Superior Court Justice Paul Perell issued a ruling last year in which he sided with the plaintiffs in both solitary confinement class action lawsuits and found trial would be unnecessary to decide the claims.

Judge Perell awarded $20 million in preliminary damages in each solitary confinement class action lawsuit. In the long-term solitary confinement case, he determined the inmate Class Members should get the money. For the mentally ill inmate case, he determined the money should be put toward making “structural changes” in prisons to improve conditions for inmates with mental illness.

In its appeal, the federal government argued that Judge Perell should have only issued a ruling after allowing the solitary confinement class action lawsuits to go to trial. Canada argued that it was only recently that courts characterized the practice of administrative segregation as cruel and unusual punishment.

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed, finding there was “ample evidence” that Canada failed to heed warnings of the devastating psychological effects that isolation can have on prisoners, especially when they are isolated for lengthy periods of time.

“In international law, for at least 30 years, there has been a growing recognition of the need to eliminate use of solitary confinement for prisoners with mental illness and strictly limit its use for all prisoners,” the Ontario Court of Appeal wrote.

“The charter breach has caused severe harm to very vulnerable people and the state’s conduct has been condemned as being cruel, excessive, abhorrent and intolerable.”

The Appeal Court ordered the government to pay the plaintiffs $75,000 to cover their legal costs.

Do you think solitary confinement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? Tell us your opinion in the comment section below!

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Bell Canada Faces Class Action Over ‘Exorbitant’ Fees for Prison Calls

Canada Milk Products Recalled Due to Sanitizer Contamination

Mercedes-Benz Canada is Facing a Moldy Air Conditioner Class Action Lawsuit

Canada Reimbursing Workers Impacted by Phoenix Pay System