Response to Bill C-83

Written Testimony for
By Leilah Mouna

The conflict with this form of imprisonment lies not in finding faults in its positive attributes or disproving its fundamental purpose of rehabilitation. Rather, importance lies in proving that without doubt, the current and prolonged use of solitary confinement is morally and legally corrupt. In North America, home of liberty and human rights, over 80,000 prisoners are isolated in solitary confinement. We purposely inflict such lengthened isolation, when it has been proven to cause mental illness, physical harm, a decreased ability for inmates to become members of society again, and direct infringement against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The UDHR highlights the problem of solitary confinement in Article 5. It states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”.  In 2013, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture announced that, “to keep an adult in solitary confinement for more than 15 days constitutes torture”. The prolonged use of such isolation for youth and the mentally ill is also being called for prohibition by the UN.

Still, solitary confinement under Bill C-83 can be used for prolonged periods of times. Instead, the prisoner should undergo a set period of solitary confinement but not for weeks on end, the prisoner must be trialed for some sort of improvement between stints in solitary confinement, and there should be an age restriction. Placing juveniles in solitary confinement for extended periods of time limits their ability to read, write, exercise, and receive educational programming, drug treatment or mental health services. Their brains are still developing, which puts them at a much higher risk of psychological harm when exposed to isolation.

Solitary confinement stands in stark contrast to what humanity stands for. Humans are defined as social and sympathetic beings yet we isolate prisoners (within the regular prison system) and take away their ability to develop socially or exercise sympathy in their lives. Ultimately, we are taking away their ability to be human, which in turn, makes US even less human.

Fight against systemic racism in prison wins all-party support

The Globe and Mail | Tom Cardoso, Crime and justice reporter | Janice Dickson
Published October 26, 2020

MPs from all parties on a House of Commons committee say they support studying systemic discrimination in federal prisons, including inmate risk assessments, days after a Globe and Mail investigation found these tools are biased against Indigenous and Black people.

Jack Harris, the NDP’s public safety critic, said before a meeting of the public safety committee that a study is an “extremely high” priority after he introduced a motion that calls for “immediate measures to be taken to provide expeditious redress for systemic discrimination in federal prisons, including risk assessments.” Indigenous and Black inmates are over-represented in high-security prisons, the motion says, and serve “longer incarcerations” with “limited access to programs and parole.”

Committee members met on Monday evening, but would not say whether Mr. Harris’ motion was raised or if a vote was held because it was not a public session. However, members from each party told The Globe they support studying the issue.

A Globe and Mail investigation revealed that after accounting for variables like age, offence severity and criminal history, the standardized tests were biased against Black and Indigenous men. The tests, which measure the risk that an inmate of a federal prison would pose to public safety upon release, play a significant role in determining prison placement, the programs and services inmates can access, and their chances of getting parole.

The analysis of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) data found that Black men were almost 24 per cent more likely to end up with the worst security classification compared with white men. It also showed that Indigenous men were nearly 30 per cent more likely than white men to receive the worst score for reintegration potential. And after accounting for their reintegration scores, it found that both groups were less likely than white men to reoffend.

“We knew that there was discriminatory treatment,” Mr. Harris said. “We didn’t know the why and the how – and now that we do, there appears to be a means to seek to correct it. Someone should be stepping in.”

The Office of the Correctional Investigator estimates Indigenous and Black people account for about 30 and 10 per cent of inmates respectively, even though they represent less than 5 and 4 per cent of the Canadian population. Spokespeople for the CSC and Public Safety Minister Bill Blair have said more is needed to address systemic racism in the prison system. Mr. Blair’s spokespeople also said he would meet with Anne Kelly, the head of the CSC, to ensure inmates are assessed appropriately.

Monday evening’s committee meeting was scheduled to include a public session at which Mr. Blair was to appear with Ms. Kelly, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, David Vigneault, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and John Ossowski, president of Canada Border Services Agency. Mr. Blair’s office said that part of the meeting was cancelled because of scheduling conflicts.

Liberal MP John McKay, chair of the public safety committee, said the issue of racism in Canada’s prisons has caught his personal interest and that of other committee members. He said he would support a study of the issue. “I think it would be worth looking into, very much worth looking into,” he said, adding that he hopes the public session is rescheduled for early next week.

Bloc Québécois member Kristina Michaud and Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs, the committee’s vice-chairs, said they support Mr. Harris’s proposal.

“When Minister Bill Blair does finally decide to appear at our committee, we plan to ask him what steps he has taken to address issues of racism in the departments and agencies that he leads,” Ms. Stubbs said in a statement.

“Our committee is currently engaged in a study looking into issues of systemic racism in law enforcement. We support the committee looking into the correctional system as well,” she said.

Senator Murray Sinclair, who led the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, said senior political and correctional leaders
must be held responsible. “I think that the Commissioner of Corrections, as well as the senior officials of each of the institutions and the [Public Safety] Minister themselves need to be held to account.”

Mr. Sinclair was a judge in Manitoba for more than two decades, and said he has witnessed the impact of risk assessments. When he was on the bench, he often recommended treatments for people he had sentenced, he said, but they were ignored after the person went through their intake risk assessments at a correctional facility.

Mr. Sinclair said CSC has long known about issues with its risk assessments.

“They’ve been promising for years to do something about bias in the intake process,” he said. “But the bias is not so much about individuals needing more training, it’s about the fact that the assessment tools that they’re using are so inappropriate.”

According to Mr. Sinclair, the CSC can’t be trusted to deal with systemic issues. “That’s been the case for years,” he said, citing the government’s slow response to recommendations of an inquiry into the 2007 death of Ashley Smith. Not much has changed, he said, and the CSC’s lack of action on assessments is no different.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2018 that the CSC had not done enough to ensure its psychological risk assessment tools were reliable for Indigenous people, and ordered it look into whether they are biased. Two years before that, the Office of the Auditor-General found that Indigenous men received the worst security-level scores more frequently than other inmates. At the time, the CSC said it would look at designing Indigenous-specific risk assessments.

A senate committee is already studying this issue. A 2019 interim report noted risk scores were a frequent point of concern for inmates and correctional experts. Senator Wanda Bernard previously told The Globe she hopes a final report will be ready in 2021.

Letter to Brian Pallister, Premier of Manitoba

Campaign for the Abolition of Solitary Confinement

Hon. Brian Pallister
Province of Manitoba
450 Broadway
Winnipeg, MB R3C 0V8
November 2, 2020

Dear Premier Pallister:

Re: Solitary Confinement

We wish to raise with you our concerns, widely shared by the public, on the continued use of solitary confinement in corrections. Our aim is abolition, but we would hope to see major reforms achieved even short of that goal. We expect that the gross overrepresentation of Indigenous persons in solitary (already over-represented in the prison population) will not be curtailed short of legislation to abolish solitary.

As you may know, the federal government has abandoned its appeals on two major decisions on solitary. This means that the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, written by Justice Benotto, stands, that for solitary over 15 days, legislative standards are inadequate, and that the risk of harm “outrages standards of decency and amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.” While, technically this is a decision regarding federal institutions, our understanding is that all jurisdictions are effectively bound by it.

The Supreme Court of Canada had agreed to hear this and the B.C. appeal on (Leask). This, we expected, would result in a concerted denunciation of solitary, at least over 15 days. To avoid this embarrassment, the federal government withdrew, using the excuse of effectively abolishing the use of solitary in federal prisons by the establishment of “structured intervention units.” This approach, through Bill C-83, is now in force and its effects are not yet known. We would predict that suicides and self-harm will decrease with its use, but we share the skepticism of many experts on corrections, that this is more of a cosmetic name change, with loopholes, than a full-scale elimination of the practice. Firm limits are lacking.

Second, you are doubtless also aware of the recent legislation adopted by Yukon, to limit solitary by law to 15 days. When you decide to draw up a new act for Manitoba, we urge you to include a ban on the use of solitary for inmates with psychiatric illness, pregnant women and those who have recently given birth, inmates with physical disabilities and the young (under 25 – those who suffer the worst long-term consequences from solitary). A limit of 10 days initially, to drop to five, would be better than 15 days, a number not based on any evidence that it is adequate to avoid harmful consequences. However, the 15-day limit now is, in effect, the law for all jurisdictions. It is hard to imagine any court deciding that prolonged solitary would be permissible in a provincial or territorial prison, though not in a federal one.

Third, courts are increasingly making judgments against governments for their use of solitary. Ontario Superior Court Justice Perell upheld a class-action suit, awarding $20 million in damages, citing the devastating psychological consequences. While this was a suit against Corrections Canada, provinces could be sued in a similar fashion. Perell’s decision showed contempt for the excuses made for solitary. He referred to it as “a dungeon inside a prison.”

As you know, Manitoba has undergone scrutiny for both its treatment of adults and youth in solitary confinement in the past several years. In 2019, investigations by the Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth, Daphne Penrose, revealed that from September 2015 to August 2016 more than one in three youth entering custody experienced segregation. Further, more than one-third of those who entered segregation remained there for over 24 hours, and one boy was held in solitary confinement for 400 consecutive days.

Also, in 2016, nearly one in 10 adult inmates in Manitoba were held in segregation. Then in 2017, data obtained through freedom of information requests revealed that, in a provincial women’s jail, 27% of documented placements in administrative segregation were listed as for “overflow” and 32% included no documented reason whatsoever. This year we learned that youth were being held in segregation in adult cells at the Winnipeg Remand Centre as they awaited bail hearings (although this issue has since been remedied).

Finally, relevant data are needed. We ask that you provide annual or the most recent reports of the number incarcerated, male and female, for Manitoba, the number placed in solitary, and number of days. Specifics are needed for Indigenous persons and inmates of colour (both are known to be over-represented). Clearly, to track progress, firm numbers are needed.

For reference purposes, we offer a summary of categories of data published by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, Government of Canada:

  • Segregation admissions overall (voluntary and involuntary)
  • Segregation admissions per individual (voluntary and involuntary)
  • Length of stay in segregation
  • History of self-injury among those admitted to segregation
  • Number of offenders admitted to segregation at least once in a given fiscal year
  • Prevalence of a history of segregation in particular populations
  • Use of force incidents in segregation context
  • Prevalence of segregation or segregation-like conditions to protect individuals requiring accommodations for their gender identity
  • Complaints regarding segregation
  • Prevalence of persons with identified mental health or ability issues in segregation
  • Deaths in custody that occur in segregation
  • Prevalence of youth in segregation and reason why.

We look forward to hearing from you or the appropriate Minister.

On behalf of the Campaign,

Brenda Baker
Paul Copeland CM
Pauline Couture
John Godfrey
Kate Kitchen
Myim Bakan Kline
Patrick Lesage
Jeremy Madden
Lynn McDonald
Ian Morrison
Shannon Sampert
Bev Swerling

Please respond to:

cc: Hon. Cliff Cullen, Minister of Justice and Attorney General
Hon. Eileen Clark, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Relations
Wab Kinew, Leader of the Opposition
Nahanni Fontaine, Opposition Justice Critic
Ian Bushie, Opposition Critic for Indigenous Affairs

To Mike Farnworth and David Eby, BC government ministers

Hon Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General and Hon. David Eby, Attorney General, Government of British Columbia

18 January 2020

Dear Mr Farnworth and Mr Eby

We were encouraged to hear that the B.C. government is looking at the issue of solitary confinement (separate confinement), possibly by legislation, possibly by regulation. Naturally we would prefer legislation, as it is harder to undo it when put into place than regulations.

You are aware that Yukon is the first jurisdiction to legislate limits on solitary: 15 days at any one time, a 5 day space between, and a maximum of 60 days over a 365-day period. This is the same as that legislated by the Ontario government in 2018, just before the provincial election that resulted in a change of government, hence no implementation. (The NDP supported the then Liberal government’s bill, the Progressive Conservatives, now the government, opposed it.)

The Yukon legislation is a start, but we hope that BC will go further, at the very least to add a complete ban for the use of solitary for those under 25, for young people are more likely than older to suffer long-term consequences of such isolation.

We would urge you to reduce the limits, say 10 days, for a maximum of 40 days per year. You perhaps realize that the 15-day limit, the “Mandela Rules,” is not based on any evidence that 15 days is a safe limit for solitary, that harm only occurs after it. The 15 days was evidently a compromise, for jurisdictions that had not had any limits. Nelson Mandela himself never proposed anything of the kind, but he was clear that solitary confinement was soul destroying.

Yours sincerely

Harry Arthurs, OC, OONt, dean and president emeritus, York University
Ann Cameron, PhD, professor emerita of developmental psychology
Max Cameron, PhD, professor of political science, UBC
Paul Copeland, CM, LLB, life bencher
Pauline Couture, president PCA, co-CEO, BlockFilmInc.
Myim Bakan Kline, B.A., law student, University of Toronto
Lynn McDonald, CM, PhD, LLD (hon), professor emerita
Ian Morrison
Debra Parkes, Professor and Chair in Feminist Legal Studies, Allard Law School
(Very Rev.) Lois Wilson, CC, retired senator, former moderator, United Church of Canada

Please reply to

Congratulations to Yukon

Campaign for the Abolition of Solitary Confinement | 15 January 2020

Congratulations to Yukon, the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt firm, legislated, limits on the use of solitary confinement: 15 days, no more than 60 over a 365-day period, with a required 5 day break between any new imposition of solitary. These limits are consistent with the “Mandela rules” adopted by the United Nations.

The Yukon law also bans the use of solitary for pregnant women and those who recently gave birth, those who are suicidal, chronically self-harming or have an intellectual disability or mobility impairment that meet prescribed conditions.

We note that these measures are similar to those adopted by the previous Ontario government (under Premier Kathleen Wynne), but not implemented under the current (Doug Ford) government.

What next? The Campaign for the Abolition of Solitary Confinement looks to other provinces and territories to do at least as much. We would strongly urge that a ban on solitary for those under 25 be added to any legislation – young people can be harmed more by solitary, and as their brains are still developing, the damage can be long-term.

This is a start and we look to forward to the next steps.

Limits to solitary confinement: Letter to Yukon’s premier and justice minister

Hon. Tracy-Anne McPhee’s response can be read at the end of this letter. Please scroll to the end of the page to read the embedded letter (a PDF scan)

Hon. Sandy Silver, premier;
Hon. Tracy-Anne McPhee, Minister of Justice
2 November 2019

Dear Premier Silver and Ms McPhee
re: Limits to solitary confinement

The Campaign for the Abolition of Solitary Confinement was pleased to see your decision to put limits on the use of solitary as stated in the UN Convention. We seek full abolition, but recognize the end of prolonged solitary as an important step.

We urge you to add one further category to the list of complete exemptions (pregnant inmates, etc.), the under-25s. Medical evidence is that the harm done to young people from solitary is worse and more long lasting than for adults, as the brain is still developing. This point was raised by medical experts in the debate over the legalization of cannabis, that the harm done by its use was greater for the under-25s—a point not acted on for obvious practical reasons, but a point clearly relevant here.

We would also point out that the 15-day cap, recognized now in several courts in Canada, is not based on evidence. It was a compromise, an acceptable limit for societies not used to having any limit. Part of the “Mandela Rules,” it should also be noted that Mandela himself never stated that solitary was acceptable if kept under 15 days. He simply said how awful it was. Sadly, there have been numerous cases of suicide, and many of attempted suicide and self-harm among inmates in solitary less than 15 days.

We would, accordingly, encourage you to look at reducing the cap to 10 and 5 days as your next steps. Whether or not you do, your planned legislation should reduce the harm of solitary. We congratulate you on your leadership and look to seeing the results.

Yours sincerely

(co-signed by)

Harry Arthurs, OC, OONt, dean emeritus, Osgoode Hall, president emeritus, York University
Paul Copeland, CM, LLB, life bencher
Hon. John Godfrey, CM, DPhil, former federal Cabinet minister
Hon. Keith Hoilett, retired judge
Lynn McDonald, CM, PhD, LLD (hon), professor emerita
Very Rev. Lois Wilson, CC, retired senator, former moderator, United Church of Canada


Parts of solitary confinement replacement law to come into effect Nov. 30

Marco Vigliotti | | 21 August 2019

Penitentiaries in Canada must adopt the Liberal government’s replacement for solitary confinement in November.

Sections of a new federal law overhauling the rules for solitary confinement, known formally as administrative segregation, will come into force on Nov. 30, as dictated in an order-in-council approved by cabinet this month. They include provisions authorizing penitentiaries to establish structured intervention units (SIUs).

According to the government, inmates placed in SIUs will still retain access to health care and rehabilitative programming, and are entitled to four hours outside of their cells daily, instead of two under the current system, as well as two hours of “meaningful human contact” every day.

The order-in-council also covered sections in the legislation permitting the appointment of independent, external decision-makers, new rules on when strip searches are permitted, and the creation of health-care units in a prison.

Under the new law, the head of the correctional facility must rule on whether to keep a prisoner in an SIU after five days of their admission, and the corrections commissioner would then need to approve of keeping an inmate in an SIU 30 days after that decision and every 60 days afterwards. An external decision-maker appointed by the public safety minister would need to review an inmate’s confinement in an SIU in certain circumstances.

After a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling in June struck down indefinite use of administrative segregation, Ontario Senator Kim Pate said Senate amendments rejected by the Liberals to the new legislation would have ensured it would survive a similar legal challenge because it would have required the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to apply to a superior court in order to keep a prisoner in isolation for more than 48 hours.

However, the Liberals countered that the ruling didn’t make any findings about the constitutionality of the new law, with the ruling specifically mentioning the legislation was not before the court and it would abolish administrative segregation.

In a statement after the legislation received royal assent in June, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said the federal government will introduce a “regulatory package” to help implement the act that will establish processes to “provide procedural fairness to inmates, clarify roles and responsibilities, and ensure an open and transparent approach to decisionmaking.”
Infrastructure changes and hiring of staff to implement the bill, he said at the time, are expected to be completed by November, with provisions repealing administrative segregation and introducing SIUs also expected to “be in force by this time.”
Scott Bardsley, a spokesperson for Goodale, told iPolitics the government is “looking forward to announcing the Implementation Advisory Panel and Independent External Decision-Makers … in the near future.”

The Liberals also claim that the new law will also increase mental health services and Indigenous supports in the correctional space, while bolstering independent oversight of Canada’s correctional system.

Inmates are placed under administrative segregation generally when they are seen as a threat to others in the institution or their safety could be threatened by associating with other inmates.

Calls for reforms grew after 19-year-old Ashley Smith died by suicide in 2007 after spending over 1,000 days in solitary confinement.

Federal correctional investigator Ivan Zinger said the Canadian Corrections Services almost halved the number of inmates in administrative segregation over the past seven years, dropping from 710 in 2011 to 341 in 2018.

However, he warned in an interview with iPolitics last fall that the government’s replacement could lead to more prisoners landing in “segregation-lite” conditions.

Inmates who have been put into transitional units, secure units or special-needs units have a “very restrictive routine,” along with lengthy times spent in the cell, Zinger said, cautioning that the new law is a “widening of the net of those restrictive environments.”

“There’s no procedural safeguard,” he argued.

“We may end up with a regime that touches more people and that is very restrictive.”

The legislation was passed by the Senate in the spring after the addition of several late-stage amendments.

Among the changes approved by the governing Liberals were requiring a mental health assessment of all inmates within 30 days of admission into federal custody and within 24 hours of being moved to an SIU, and rearranging a section of the bill to emphasize the possibility of transferring inmates to outside hospitals.

* The first sentence in the story has been changed to clarify that work is already underway at penitentiaries to adhere to the new corrections law.

MPP introduces bill to end solitary confinement in Ontario

CBC News · Posted: May 09, 2019 4:00 AM ET

An Ottawa MPP is introducing a private member’s bill designed to gradually eliminate the use of solitary confinement in Ontario’s correctional institutions.

Ottawa-Vanier MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers wants to create a five-year plan to gradually phase out the practice.

Before that happens, her bill, if passed, would also prohibit inmates from spending more than 60 days a year in solitary confinement, require medical staff to provide daily care to those inmates, and create an independent oversight body that would oversee the use of solitary confinement.

At a news conference Wednesday at Queen’s Park, Des Rosiers said prison inmates should pay their debt to society — but not at the expense of their potential for rehabilitation.

“This aspiration is fundamentally at odds with our continued unconstitutional use of prolonged solitary confinement,” Des Rosiers said.

“Far from the spirit of rehabilitation, solitary confinement needlessly damages people, makes reintegration difficult and has exacerbated the mental health crisis.”

‘Cruel and unusual’

The Liberal MPP’s bill comes approximately one month after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that extended solitary confinement “outrages standards of decency and amounts to cruel and unusual treatment.”

In that ruling, the province’s top court prohibited inmates from spending more than 15 days in a row in solitary confinement.

Des Rosiers said Wednesday her bill was designed to reflect the spirit of that ruling, while also going “a bit further.”

“[Solitary confinement] has been proven over and over to cause serious psychological impact,” she told CBC Radio’s All In A Day.

“And the fact that the courts have ruled it as cruel and unusual punishment expresses the way in which it’s not a practice we should keep in our toolbox.”

Violence against guards a concern

However, OPSEU Local 411, the union representing guards at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, has linked the ongoing modernization of the rules around segregation in Ontario corrections facilities to a spike in violence against guards.

Des Rosiers acknowledged those were legitimate concerns, and told All In A Day that she’d like to see the union be part of the conversation around what would replace solitary confinement.

“There are lots of avenues to create some different spaces, some ways in which people can be supported … without being locked down for 22 hours [a day],” Des Rosiers said.

“It leads to no good outcomes for them — or for our society.”

The federal government has also introduced Bill C-83, which purports to eliminate solitary confinement, but some critics have called the bill merely a cosmetic rebranding of the current situation.

The bill was adopted by the House of Commons and is now before the Senate.

To Sylvia Jones, minister of correctional services (Ontario)

Hon. Sylvia Jones MPP
Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services
February 27, 2019

Dear Ms Jones

We heartily endorse the call by Renu Mandhane, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to end solitary confinement in Ontario.

Since its inception in 2016, our organization has endorsed abolition. We do not see that partial measures will eliminate the horrendous injustices that occur. The over-representation of Indigenous inmates (already over-represented in the prison population), and use of solitary with the mentally ill and young have been known about for decades.

Solitary should not be treated as a politically partisan matter. These cases (Ashley Smith and Adam Capay and too many others) have occurred under both Liberal and P.C. governments.

The previous government saw to the adoption of new legislation, which has the prospect of reducing suicides, attempted suicides, and mental illness (new and exacerbated). However, as the Capay case has shown, provisions for reviewing cases can easily be ignored. In the tragic Ashley Smith case (her original offence: throwing crabapples at a postman), it was a trained psychologist who directed correctional officers not to enter her (solitary) cell and stop her from committing suicide.

Neither health care practitioners nor reviewers of cases have shown the necessary ability to detect which inmates might commit suicide and intervene.

The statistics contained in the Fegeau decision on Capay are disturbing: a substantial number of Ontario cases beyond the 15-day limit that the United Nations terms “torture.” The evidence of long-term harm and increased recidivism from solitary also point to the need for abolition.

Short of immediate abolition, we suggest that significant improvements could be made by:

  • its complete elimination for young people under 25, whose developing brains are more severely impacted by solitary; we note that a number of American jurisdictions have done this;
  • its complete elimination for pregnant women and nursing mothers.
  • immediate imposition of a 10-day limit on solitary, to be amended to 5 days at a fixed time.

Details that have appeared in the Capay material suggest the need for better training of correctional officers. We propose that the province encourage the establishment of college certificate courses for correctional officers–not given by the Ministry–but recognized by the Ministry with a higher rate of pay and rank.

Yours sincerely

Christopher Adamson, PhD, sociologist
Helen Breslauer, PhD, sociologist (retired)
Phyllis Creighton, OOnt, MA, editor
Paul Copeland, CM, LLB, life bencher
Stephanie DiGiuseppe, JD, barrister and solicitor
John Godfrey, CM, PC, Dphil, former MP
Susan James, MA, international development professional
David Kilgour, JD, former prosecutor and Cabinet minister
Robert Lackey, B.A., B.Ed. (retired)
Judith McCormack, LLM, former assistant dean of law
Lynn McDonald, CM, PhD, LLD (hon), professor emerita
Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, MES, PhD, lecturer
Frans Schryer, PhD, professor emeritus
Bev Swerling, M.A., guidance counsellor
Rebecca Thornhill, PhD, cardiology technician
David Walsh, MBA, real estate developer
Helen Hansen, Tim Ellis, Elina Korchagina

Please reply to

Copy to chief commissioner, OHRC