The prisoner consistently denied knowledge of the knife's existence
The Federal Court upheld the conviction of a federal inmate who was found with a knife inside his cell, despite the inmate’s insistence that he was not aware of its existence.
In Bibeau v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 1748, Patrick Bibeau sought to overturn the decision of the Independent Chairperson of the Beaver Creek Institution Disciplinary Board, convicting him of possession of unauthorized item in prison. Bibeau is a federal inmate at Beaver Creek. During a routine search of his cell, a kitchen knife was discovered inside a jacket hanging on the back door of the cell. There was also a secret compartment in the ceiling of the cell where a plastic knife sheath was found.
At the disciplinary hearing, Bibeau presented a letter from Kyle Heath, another inmate at the Institution, who claimed that the jacket and the knife inside belonged to him. Despite this, Bibeau was convicted of possession of an unauthorized item under s. 40 (j) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The Chairperson of the disciplinary board noted that Bibeau admitted he had seen the jacket in his cell a few days before the search and concluded that he was “willfully blind” to the knife.
Knowledge and control
The matter was elevated to the Federal Court, which ultimately upheld the Chairperson’s decision upon finding that it was reasonable. Bibeau argued that the Institution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the knife. He claimed he did not notice the jacket hanging on the back door of his cell.
However, the Chairperson pointed out that Bibeau testified that the jacket was hanging on the door of his cell at least two days prior to the search, which demonstrated he had knowledge of the jacket. He also admitted he noticed the color of the jacket. Consequently, upon review of the Chairperson’s decision, the Federal Court found it was open and reasonable for the Chairperson to find that Bibeau had knowledge of the jacket.
A Case of Willful Blindness
Jurisprudence states that willful blindness arises when a person becomes aware of the need to make some inquiry but declines to do so because they do not wish to know the truth. The Chairperson concluded that Bibeau was willfully blind to the knife because he knew that the jacket was in his cell, but he chose to ignore what was inside it. By his own actions, Bibeau had knowledge and control of the knife, according to the Chairperson.
The Federal Court agreed with this conclusion. The court explained that in an institutional context, it is reasonable to expect an inmate who finds themselves in the possession of an object that does not belong to them, not to ignore it. This is consistent with the purpose and principles of the law, which include ensuring the protection of society, correctional staff members and offenders.
The Federal Court further agreed with the Chairperson’s finding that Bibeau had control of the items in his cell, including the jacket and the knife, because he had exclusive use of access to his cell as the sole occupant. As a result, the court ruled that it was open for the Chairperson to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Bibeau had control of the knife and that this, combined with his knowledge, constituted possession of an unauthorized item under the Act.
