Limits on Prison Segregation and Discipline

Summary#

• This bill updates Saskatchewan’s correctional law. It changes how inmate segregation (isolation) works, updates discipline rules, and moves some transfer procedures into regulations. It also updates terms and cleans up parts of the law that are no longer used.

• The goal is to set clearer limits on segregation, add health and independent reviews, and streamline discipline and transfer processes.

• Key changes:

  • Replaces “community correctional facility” with “reduced custody facility” (no change to how these facilities work).
  • Redefines “segregation” as 22+ hours per day without meaningful social interaction, caps it at 15 consecutive days, requires daily health checks, quick written reasons, and fast reviews (first by the system, then by an independent reviewer).
  • Creates “temporary confinement” for short-term safety or security needs, with a time limit set by regulation.
  • Moves inmate transfer steps and appeal details from the law to regulations; inmates can still appeal transfers under those regulations.
  • Overhauls inmate discipline: separates minor and major offences, changes possible penalties, adds fines for major offences, and makes major-hearing decisions final. Some penalties for minor offences increase (for example, loss of privileges and restitution caps).
  • Ends the Correctional Facilities Industries Revolving Fund, which already stopped operating.

What it means for you#

• People in custody

  • Segregation limits: You cannot be held in segregation for more than 15 straight days. Segregation now means 22+ hours a day with little or no real social contact.
  • Health and reviews: You must get a daily health assessment while in segregation. You must receive written reasons within 12 hours and can seek legal advice right away. A senior official reviews your case within 24 hours. If you remain segregated, an independent reviewer looks at it.
  • When segregation is banned: There will be rules (set in regulation) describing situations when segregation is not allowed.
  • Temporary confinement: Staff can use short-term confinement for safety or security. The maximum hours will be set in regulation.
  • Discipline system: Minor offences are handled by a designated officer, with the right to appeal to the facility director. Major offences are handled by a hearing adjudicator; those decisions are final. Penalties for major offences can include up to 10 days of disciplinary segregation, higher restitution for damage or theft, and a fine up to $200. For minor offences, loss of privileges can be up to 15 days and restitution caps increase.
  • Transfers: You can request a transfer and appeal a transfer decision, but the steps and timelines will be in regulations, not spelled out in the law.

• Families

  • If your family member is placed in segregation, they should get written reasons quickly and be able to contact a lawyer. Reviews happen fast, including by an independent person if segregation continues.
  • Discipline outcomes may include higher restitution or fines, which can affect family finances if you help your loved one.

• Correctional staff

  • Clearer definition and caps on segregation, daily health checks, and rapid review requirements will shape case management.
  • A new temporary confinement tool allows short-term action for safety without moving directly to segregation.
  • Discipline processes are split: minor cases by designated officers (with appeals to the director), major cases by hearing adjudicators (final decisions).
  • Transfer procedures and appeal steps will be set in regulation, allowing operational updates without changing the law.

• Lawyers and advocates

  • New hard limits and required reviews create defined checkpoints for legal oversight of segregation.
  • Appeal rights shift: minor-discipline appeals go to the director; major-discipline decisions are final within the system.
  • Key procedural details for transfers, segregation prohibitions, and time limits for temporary confinement will be in regulations.

• General public

  • The bill aligns segregation rules with human-rights standards by defining it tightly and limiting duration.
  • Administrative updates (new terms, ending a closed fund) have little day-to-day effect on the public.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents’ View#

• Sets clear, enforceable limits on segregation and requires daily health checks, which supporters say improves safety and well-being.
• Fast reviews and an independent reviewer add oversight and fairness.
• Defining segregation as 22+ hours without meaningful interaction and capping it at 15 days aligns with international best practices.
• A short-term “temporary confinement” option lets staff manage urgent safety risks without overusing segregation.
• Updating the discipline system clarifies roles, speeds decisions, and tailors penalties to offence severity.
• Moving procedures to regulations allows quicker operational improvements while keeping core rights in the law.
• Cleaning up old terms and removing a defunct fund modernizes the statute.

Opponents’ View#

• Shifting transfer and some segregation details from the law to regulations may weaken transparency and make protections easier to change without full debate.
• Even with a 15-day cap, segregation can harm mental health; “meaningful social interaction” may be hard to measure.
• Making major-discipline decisions final inside the system removes an internal appeal step and could risk unfair outcomes.
• Higher restitution caps and new fines may burden inmates with little income and indirectly affect their families.
• Independent reviewers are appointed by government, raising questions about independence.
• Daily health assessments and added reviews may strain staffing and budgets, affecting other programs or services.