Background
Dean Christopher Roberts brought a proposed class proceeding concerning conditions imposed at federal correctional institutions during declared COVID-19 outbreaks. The certified class covers people held in Correctional Service of Canada institutions outside Quebec who, for at least 15 consecutive days, were confined to their cells for 20 or more hours per day and deprived of the opportunity for at least two hours of daily interaction with others.
The action alleges systemic negligence and violations of ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms arising from the conditions under which medical isolation was implemented. The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified common issues addressing CSC’s duty and alleged breach, Charter violations and related conduct, aggregate and punitive damages, and procedures for any remaining individual questions. Canada appealed only the rulings on commonality and whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed Canada’s appeal and upheld certification. The claim challenged the conditions of isolation, not the decisions to isolate prisoners for medical reasons. The certification judge had solid evidentiary support for finding that confinement under the class-defining conditions would have caused psychological harm and that common questions about systemic operational conduct, negligence, and Charter compliance could advance every class member’s claim.
The Court rejected Canada’s argument that differing institutions, pandemic stages, and individual circumstances made class-wide adjudication impossible. A common issue need not resolve every claim completely or produce an identical result for every member; remaining individual questions may be addressed after the common-issues trial. Canada’s arguments that medical isolation was justified by the pandemic went to the merits and could be considered at that trial.
The certification judge also properly found a class proceeding preferable. It would promote access to justice for incarcerated people who often could not afford individual litigation and would use judicial resources more efficiently than an indeterminate number of separate actions. The absence of a strong behaviour-modification rationale did not outweigh those considerations.
Key Takeaways
- Certification did not decide whether CSC was negligent or violated the Charter; it determined only that the pleaded issues could proceed collectively.
- The relevant common experience was prolonged confinement under the class-defining conditions, not the individualized reasons for initially ordering medical isolation.
- Potential individual inquiries into harm or damages do not defeat commonality when class-wide answers will materially advance every member’s claim.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that systemic claims arising from pandemic measures may be certified even where the public-health context varied across locations and time. At certification, courts focus on whether there is some basis in fact for common adjudication, without weighing competing evidence or deciding the merits.
For correctional litigation, the ruling distinguishes the justification for separating prisoners from the legality of the conditions maintained during that separation. Governments may defend those conditions at trial, but contextual arguments about necessity do not necessarily prevent collective adjudication.