Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review was sought over CSC’s decision on inmate health care grievances, particularly regarding access to medical specialists and equipment.

• Allegations of disability-based discrimination were examined but found unsupported by evidence.

• The Federal Court applied the Vavilov framework, focusing on the reasonableness of the administrative decision.

• Evidence showed the inmate had frequent medical interactions and treatments, undermining claims of medical neglect.

• A separate grievance involving monetary damages and additional items was deemed irrelevant to this review.

• The Court issued a costs award to deter similar meritless filings, despite acknowledging the applicant's financial constraints.

Facts and outcome of the case

Nathaniel Moll, an inmate at Mission Institution, filed for judicial review against the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), claiming inadequate access to medical care and discrimination based on his disability. Prior to his transfer to Mission, Mr. Moll was incarcerated at Bowden Institution, where he submitted two grievances related to chronic ear pain and the denial of accommodations such as an ENT referral, dental care, a hearing aid, and a heating pad. While the hearing aid was later provided, the other items formed the basis of his application.

The Acting Assistant Commissioner of Health Services issued a final decision partially upholding the grievances. The decision found no evidence that CSC had denied Mr. Moll medical treatment or discriminated against him. It cited extensive medical attention—including over 45 documented health appointments—and attempts to manage his condition, such as prescribing medication and initiating referrals. The Commissioner directed that Mission Institution review the heating pad request, which became a separate grievance and was not part of the judicial review.

Mr. Moll’s request for damages totaling $1,000,000 was also addressed in a different grievance that the Court found irrelevant to this application. The Court held that the administrative decision under review met the legal standards of justification, intelligibility, and transparency under the Vavilov test. As a result, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

In terms of costs, the respondent (Attorney General of Canada) requested $250 due to the procedural complexity of the case. However, considering Mr. Moll’s limited means, the Court reduced the costs award to $100. The Court also ordered redaction of certain personal details in the tribunal record and formally changed the respondent's name in the style of cause to the Attorney General of Canada.