Human Rights Tribunal Denies Inmate's Laptop Request

[NAME] Tribunal Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne Citation: 2026 CHRT 28 Date: March 23, 2026 File No. : HR-DP-2881-22 Between: [NAME] Complainant - and - [NAME] Commission Commission - and - Correctional Service Canada Respondent Ruling Member: [NAME] \o "1-3" \h \z \u I. OVERVIEW PAGEREF _Toc224827107 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100300037000000 II.

DECISION PAGEREF _Toc224827108 \h 1 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100300038000000 III. ISSUES PAGEREF _Toc224827109 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100300039000000 IV.

BACKGROUND PAGEREF _Toc224827110 \h 2 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100310030000000 V. ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc224827111 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100310031000000 A) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide this motion? PAGEREF _Toc224827112 \h 3 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100310032000000 B) Do the requirements to accommodate a disability or for procedural fairness require [NAME] to provide [NAME] with a laptop computer for use in his cell? PAGEREF _Toc224827113 \h 4 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100310033000000 C) Does fairness or exceptional circumstances require that [NAME] exempt [NAME] from having to pay for office supplies, making photocopies, and printing documents to prepare for his Tribunal hearing? PAGEREF _Toc224827114 \h 8 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100310034000000 VI.

ORDER PAGEREF _Toc224827115 \h 10 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F0054006F0063003200320034003800320037003100310035000000 I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] [NAME] (the “Complainant”) is a federally sentenced inmate. He currently resides at [NAME] in British Columbia. In 2019, [NAME] filed a human rights complaint with the [NAME] Commission (the “Commission”), alleging that Correctional Service Canada ([NAME] or the “Respondent”) discriminated against him by not providing him with adequate healthcare treatment. [ 2 ] [NAME] has a disability. His Statement of Particulars (SOP) describes it as a brain injury from a motor vehicle accident, which causes him to have difficulty communicating. It also affects his ability to understand people and information presented to him. [ 3 ] [NAME] is requesting a laptop computer to use in his cell to continue preparing for the hearing of this complaint. He makes the request as an accommodation of his disability and based on his unique circumstances. He also requests office supplies and an exemption from the cost of making photocopies and printing documents. [ 4 ] The [NAME] Commission (the CHRC) provided submissions in support of [NAME]’s requests. [ 5 ] [NAME] argues that I should deny [NAME]’s requests.

II.

DECISION [ 6 ] I dismiss [NAME]’s request for a laptop computer in his cell. [NAME]’s request does not outweigh [NAME]’s security concerns, even as a request to accommodate his disability. However, [NAME] must provide [NAME] with increased access to a [NAME] computer in a monitored area. [ 7 ] I dismiss [NAME]’s request to waive the costs of office supplies, photocopying and printing that [NAME] provides. The Tribunal does not have the authority to require [NAME] to bear these costs. Even if the Tribunal could do so, [NAME] has not established that the requirements of procedural fairness or his circumstances require [NAME] to waive the costs of the supplies that he requests.

III. ISSUES [ 8 ] The issues on this motion are: A) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide this motion? B) Do the requirements to accommodate a disability or for procedural fairness require [NAME] to provide [NAME] with a laptop computer for use in his cell? C) Does fairness or exceptional circumstances require that [NAME] exempt [NAME] from having to pay for office supplies, making photocopies and printing documents to prepare for his Tribunal hearing? IV.

BACKGROUND [ 9 ] In September 2024, [NAME] informed the Tribunal that, “to be efficient” in representing himself and so he could work with “lawyer/client confidentiality,” he required a laptop computer to use in his cell. He also requested office supplies and money to prepare his case, including folders, binders, pens, staples, paper clips, 3,000 pieces of paper for photocopies, 1,000 pieces of writing paper, $350.00 for photocopying, $350.00 for mail delivery, and $100.00 for phone calls. [NAME] said that he cannot afford to cover these costs because of the very low pay for work that he receives from [NAME]. [ 10 ] In November 2024, [NAME] approved [NAME]’s use of an “E-Discovery” laptop, which allows him to view documents but, for security reasons, is not connected to the internet and cannot create or print documents. [NAME] has used the E-Discovery laptop, but he is requesting a personal laptop to use in his cell as an accommodation of his disability. He also states that using a computer outside of his cell would endanger his life. [NAME] states that it is willing to make accommodations for [NAME]’s disability, but it cannot provide him with a personal laptop for in-cell use due to the safety and security risks of doing so. [ 11 ] In deciding this motion, I have considered the affidavit evidence and written submissions provided by [NAME]’s oral submissions, the Commission’s written submissions, and the further information that [NAME] provided on December 15, 2025, in response to my questions. I thank all parties for their helpful information.

V. ANALYSIS A) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide this motion? [ 12 ] Yes. [ 13 ] [NAME] submits that its internal grievance process is the proper mechanism for considering [NAME]’s requests, and that the Tribunal’s consideration of them on a motion would allow [NAME] to bypass the grievance process established by statute. [NAME] argues that to consider these requests would place the Tribunal in a position of broader remedial authority than the Federal Court would have on judicial review of a [NAME] decision on an internal grievance. [ 14 ] The Commission submits that the Tribunal has the authority under the [NAME] Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (the CHRA) to decide these issues. It also distinguishes between the procedural nature of [NAME]’s requests and the issues in the Federal Court decisions that [NAME] relies upon to support its position. [ 15 ] I agree with the Commission. I find that the CHRA and the [NAME] Tribunal Rules of Procedure, 2021 , SOR/2021-137 (the “Rules of Procedure”) authorize the Tribunal to rule on this motion. [ 16 ] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction derives from the CHRA. The parties in Tribunal proceedings must be given a full and ample opportunity to present evidence and make legal representations on the matters raised in the complaint (see section 50(1) of the CHRA). The Tribunal is the master of its own procedure (see [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1989 CanLII 131 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 560 at 568-9). The Tribunal conducts its proceedings as informally and expeditiously as the requirements of natural justice and the rules of procedure allow (see section 48.9(1) of the CHRA). It may also decide all questions of law or fact necessary to determining any matter under inquiry (see section 50(2) of the CHRA). The Tribunal must also interpret and apply its Rules of Procedure to reasonably accommodate the needs of the parties (see Rule 6(1) of the Rules of Procedure). [ 17 ] On this motion, [NAME] asks the Tribunal to accommodate his disability and put measures in place to assist him in participating in this proceeding. In my view, the request to consider accommodations for a party in the Tribunal’s inquiry falls clearly within the Tribunal’s discretion to manage its process under the CHRA and the Rules of Procedure. I find that, in the absence of clear legislative wording ousting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, [NAME]’s submission is inconsistent with sections 48.9(1), 50(1), and 50(2) of the CHRA. [ 18 ] [NAME] also submits that asking the Tribunal to decide on these matters is inconsistent with the principle of proportionality, in which parties must avoid unnecessarily lengthy, complex, or costly proceedings. This principle does apply, but I am not persuaded that [NAME]’s motion is inconsistent with it. The motion involves an unrepresented federal inmate’s request for accommodation and fairness measures to assist him in participating in his human rights complaint. Bringing this motion about these issues is fundamentally important to the Tribunal’s process and does not offend the principle of proportionality. B) Do the requirements to accommodate a disability or for procedural fairness require [NAME] to provide [NAME] with a laptop computer for use in his cell? [ 19 ] No. [NAME] has not persuaded me on a balance of probabilities that his request to use a laptop computer in his cell outweighs the established security risks of doing so, even as an accommodation of his disability. However, I am satisfied that the accommodation of [NAME]’s disability requires [NAME] to provide him with exclusive access to a computer in his living unit area and in the library, as it has offered to do, and to provide this access for the extended time periods listed in the December 15, 2025, letter from [NAME]’s counsel. [ 20 ] In support of its submissions, [NAME] filed the affidavit of [NAME], Assistant Warden at Mission Institution, where [NAME] resided when he brought this motion. [ 21 ] According to [NAME]’s affidavit: A) [NAME] policy formerly permitted inmates in federal penitentiaries to purchase a computer for in-cell use, subject to security restrictions. However, in 2002, due to violations of the restrictions, [NAME] commissioned an independent assessment of the risks of in-cell computer use. The assessment concluded that in-cell computer use created a high security risk. It recommended that no in-cell computers be permitted, and that computer use be limited to monitored rooms with [NAME]-supplied computers. These recommendations were considered again in 2011 and remained in effect. B) Since 2002, [NAME] has prohibited the purchase of new computers for in-cell use. Only inmates who owned a computer before October 2002 can have a computer in their cell. C) [NAME] policy (set out in Commissioner’s Directive 566-12 (“CD 566-12”)) does not permit in-cell personal laptop use due to the associated security risks described in the affidavit, including the risk of smuggling contraband, falsifying documents, and facilitating criminal activities. D) [NAME] has approved [NAME]’s use of the E-Discovery “read-only” laptop in supervised areas. Using it to create, edit, or print documents is not possible. E) In addition to using the E-Discovery laptop, [NAME] can also use [NAME]-provided computers in supervised areas. Documents created on these computers must be saved to a separate floppy disk. [NAME] does not monitor the contents of these disks unless it has reasonable grounds to believe that they contain illegal or unauthorized activities, or evidence involving the commission of an offence. [NAME] can also print documents from the computer, at ten cents per page. F) [NAME] has raised concerns about privacy while using the computers, but [NAME] policy does not authorize him to possess a computer for private or unrestricted use in his cell. [ 22 ] [NAME] submits that, for [NAME] to succeed on this motion, he must establish that exceptional circumstances exist to justify a departure from the general rule prohibiting in-cell computers, and that there are no reasonable and procedurally fair alternatives available to him. [NAME] argues that [NAME] has not established either condition. It submits that he has not explained how the use of an in-cell laptop would accommodate his disability, and he has not shown why access to a computer in a supervised area is insufficient. [NAME] also argues that [NAME]’s ability to participate in his human rights complaint to date confirms that his request for a laptop is for increased convenience, and not due to need. [ 23 ] According to the December 15, 2025, letter from [NAME]’s counsel, the computers at [NAME], where [NAME] now resides, are open on weekdays for general access for three hours during the evening from Monday to Thursday. It also states that [NAME] is willing to “accommodate exclusive and assigned computer access” by permitting [NAME] to use [NAME] computers during weekdays when he would normally be restricted to his cell, and on Saturday afternoons. The only requirement would be for [NAME] to submit an inmate request form. [ 24 ] [NAME] submits that using [NAME] computers in monitored areas is not a reasonable alternative to having a laptop in his cell. He states that there are threats to his life in the institution, and that it is likely that he would be attacked while using a computer in the monitored common areas. He asks for a computer in his cell because he is safe there, and that doing so allows him to work on his case with privacy. [ 25 ] [NAME] states that many inmates have computers and other devices in their cells, and that [NAME]’s explanations of the risks of him having a laptop computer in his cell are unfounded. He contends that [NAME] does not have concerns about him engaging in illegal activities in his cell or about him being a security risk. He says that he would only use the laptop for this proceeding. [ 26 ] [NAME] also argues that he has not always been able to obtain access to a [NAME] computer during the times referred to in [NAME]’s affidavit. He emphasizes that he needs more computer time than [NAME] has provided due to his disability. In [NAME]’s view, [NAME]’s characterization of his request as one of convenience is not appropriate. He submits that the need to accommodate his disability and to prevent risks to his safety are the exceptional circumstances that should allow for an exemption from the policy against in-cell computer use. [ 27 ] The Commission’s submissions support [NAME]’s position. The Commission argues that [NAME]’s CD 566-12 does not cover items that [NAME] may temporarily provide to inmates for their legal proceedings, including E-Discovery laptops. The Commission relies on [NAME]’s statements that his access to the E-Discovery laptop has been for shorter periods than [NAME] has stated. It submits that the accommodation of [NAME]’s disabilities requires that more computer time be available to him. The Commission states that [NAME] has the exceptional circumstances to warrant an order for a laptop for in-cell use for this proceeding. [ 28 ] Having considered the parties’ positions, I accept [NAME]’s submissions on this point. [ 29 ] I adopt the Tribunal’s finding, in a recent ruling about a request for a laptop for in-cell use, that “I am not prepared to second-guess correctional policy that was informed by a risk assessment” (see [NAME] v. Correctional Service Canada , 2024 CHRT 12 at para 20). I accept that it also applies to [NAME]’s situation, in which a request for accommodation of a disability is at play. [ 30 ] The Commission argues that CD 566-12 does not prevent [NAME] from providing [NAME] with a laptop for temporary in-cell use. However, I accept that the security requirements that underlie CD 566-12, as described in [NAME]’s affidavit, apply to temporary or ongoing in-cell computer use and to use in preparing for legal proceedings. I am satisfied that [NAME]’s position is consistent with the findings of the Federal Court of Appeal that “having computers in [NAME] institutions creates serious security-related and operational challenges, requiring that, as a general rule, inmates be given access only in secure, controlled areas, such as in the institutional libraries,” and that “ [l] ending laptops to inmates and allowing them to keep them in their cells is still the exception, not the rule” (see [NAME] v. Canada , 2023 FCA 87 at para 19 [ [NAME] ]). [ 31 ] [NAME] states that CD 566-12 should not apply to his situation. I disagree. [NAME]’s policy is justified by the legitimate security requirements that characterize the prison environment and the reasonable limitations that the environment imposes (see [NAME] at para 20). [ 32 ] [NAME] and the Commission argue that his situation, which includes a request for accommodation of a disability, are exceptional circumstances and fit within the exception for in-cell computer use. [ 33 ] However, my view is that an appropriate accommodation in this case is for [NAME] to have more computer time available to him, as he has requested. I am satisfied that this reasonable accommodation can be implemented, and it avoids the security risks inherent in making an exception to CD 566-12. [ 34 ] [NAME] has raised concerns for his safety in using a computer in common areas. However, this motion involves a request to accommodate a disability and issues of procedural fairness in the Tribunal’s proceedings. The Tribunal will not address or manage security concerns other than noting that the computers available to [NAME] are in monitored areas of the institution. [ 35 ] In my view, extended access to a computer reasonably addresses [NAME]’s disability-related request.

Accordingly, as proposed in the December 15, 2025, letter from [NAME]’s counsel, [NAME] must give “exclusive and assigned computer access” to [NAME] during the extended hours listed in the letter. It may also do so during other times that are suitable for both parties. [NAME] may access a computer in monitored areas of the institution subject only to submitting a written request form. In my view, doing so ensures that [NAME] will have reasonable extended access to a [NAME] computer. [ 36 ] The hearing of [NAME]’s case is scheduled to begin on October 26, 2026. [NAME] has several months to continue preparing his case. If he needs additional computer time as the hearing date approaches, he may make a request directly to [NAME]. If needed, the request can be raised in a future case management conference call. C) Does fairness or exceptional circumstances require that [NAME] exempt [NAME] from having to pay for office supplies, making photocopies, and printing documents to prepare for his Tribunal hearing? [ 37 ] No. [ 38 ] [NAME] requests that [NAME] provide him with office supplies without cost and exempt him from the cost of making photocopies and printing documents. He submits that [NAME] had previously provided supplies at no cost, but a [NAME] employee ended this practice. [NAME] receives a stipend of $2.50 per day. He says he would receive $5.80 if he had a job, but that [NAME] has hindered his ability to earn money. He says that he currently does not pay to send documents by fax to the Tribunal or to a lawyer, although he is currently not represented in this case. [ 39 ] The Commission submits as follows: A) [NAME] requires reasonable access to office supplies to prepare for his hearing, and, unlike the risks of using a laptop in his cell, waiving the costs for office supplies does not raise security concerns. B) As the party responsible for the care, custody, and control of inmates under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , S.C. 1992, c. 20, [NAME] assumes the costs for its inmates. The references in Commissioner’s Directive 084 (“CD 084”) to providing inmates with reasonable access to legal counsel and the courts, and to “appropriate legal and regulatory documents,” implicitly require [NAME] to provide inmates with basic tools, at no cost, so they can communicate in legal proceedings. CD 084 also states that [NAME] may, at its discretion, “authorize the photocopying of a limited quantity of documents without charge to the inmate, where the inmate lacks sufficient funds.” C) [NAME]’s limited access to funds in the carceral setting, and his disabilities, hinder his ability to participate in this proceeding. In these circumstances, the Tribunal should ensure that he can fully and fairly participate by allowing him reasonable access to the basic tools that he requests. [ 40 ] [NAME] submits as follows: A) [NAME]’s request would amount to [NAME] bearing his costs, but the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order a party to pay the litigation costs of another party. B) Where a court considers an order for costs, an order in advance of a hearing is an extraordinary exercise of discretion, requiring the party seeking the order to prove that they are truly impecunious, that they have established a prima facie case of sufficient merit, and that their case involves special circumstances, including raising unresolved issues of public importance (see [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2009 FC 756 at para 57). C) [NAME] is requesting supplies at no cost, but not having them has not impeded his ability to participate in this proceeding. D) [NAME] policy provides a process for inmates to request exemptions or accommodations related to the costs of supplies, but [NAME] has not made these requests to [NAME]. [ 41 ] I do not accept [NAME]’s request on this point. [ 42 ] [NAME]’s request would amount to an order that [NAME] pay some of his costs in advance of the hearing of his complaint, but the Tribunal does not have the authority to award legal costs (see Canada ([NAME] Commission) v . Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 SCC 53 at para 64). [ 43 ] Rule 6(1) of the Rules of Procedure requires the Tribunal to interpret and apply its rules to reasonably accommodate the needs of the parties. However, I do not interpret this rule as authority to compel a party to incur or to waive costs as an accommodation of another party. [ 44 ] I acknowledge that [NAME] is required by statute to provide care for inmates, and that it allows inmates to obtain access to the Tribunal. However, it does not follow that [NAME] must provide inmates with office supplies at no cost to participate in their human rights complaints. [ 45 ] I agree with [NAME]’s submission that [NAME] has been able to participate in the litigation of his complaint, including making two motions and sending several handwritten submissions, without the fee waivers that he is seeking. In my view, [NAME] has options that he has not explored. As [NAME] has stated, he has not applied to it for exemption from the cost of supplies. He may also request that [NAME] exercise its discretion under CD 084 for photocopying without charge. [ 46 ] For these reasons, I dismiss [NAME]’s request.

VI.

ORDER [ 47 ] [NAME]’s request for a laptop to be used in his cell is dismissed. [ 48 ] Until this complaint to the Tribunal is completed, [NAME] shall give exclusive and assigned computer access to [NAME] as described in the December 15, 2025, letter from the Department of Justice Canada to the Tribunal, as follows: A) Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., and 1:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., on a computer in [NAME]’s living unit. B) Monday to Thursday, 1:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., and 6:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m., on a computer in the library. C) Saturdays, 1:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., on a computer in the library. D) [NAME] may access a computer during the above times subject only to submitting a written request form. [ 49 ] Additional times for computer access may be substituted if they are suitable to the parties. [ 50 ] As the hearing date for this complaint approaches, [NAME] may make a request directly to [NAME] for additional computer time to prepare for the hearing. After doing so, the request can be raised in a future case management conference call if necessary. [ 51 ] [NAME]’s request to waive fees for office supplies, making photocopies, and printing documents is dismissed. Signed by [NAME] Tribunal Member Ottawa, Ontario March 23, 2026 [NAME] Tribunal Parties of Record File No. : HR-DP-2881-22 Style of Cause: [NAME] v. Correctional Service Canada Ruling of the Tribunal Dated: March 23, 2026 Motion dealt with in writing, and orally by [NAME] representations by: [NAME], Self-represented Complainant, with the support of [NAME] representations by: [NAME], for the Commission [NAME] , for the Respondent