 |
| John L. Hill |
This fact became clear to me when I was asked to defend Terry Fitzsimmons. He had spent six years in solitary confinement, either at a special handling unit or in a segregation cell at Kingston Penitentiary, before being released directly onto the street. He breached the conditions of his release and hid out in Toronto’s gay community, where he met and befriended a gay man, Don Hebert, who was dying of AIDS. The two went on a drug-fuelled spree of bank robbery and murder in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. When Fitzsimmons killed his newfound partner and friend, he used a syringe to withdraw vials of Hebert’s blood. He injected it into his veins before attending an Ottawa police station and making a full confession. He then sought legal defence.
Fortunately, shortly after being retained by Fitzsimmons, I watched an interview with Dr. Stuart Grassian on a segment of 60 Minutes. There was the defence I would use — put the prison system on trial. I flew to Boston and interviewed the Harvard professor.
Grassian was among the first to document and diagnose the psychiatric syndrome caused by solitary confinement, now often called “SHU syndrome” (special housing unit syndrome). His seminal work, “Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement,” was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 1983. His findings demonstrated that solitary confinement causes a specific psychiatric syndrome that can include hallucinations, paranoia, intense anxiety, perceptual distortions, cognitive deficits, and rage and impulsivity. These effects were observed even in prisoners with no prior mental health issues. Symptoms often persisted long after release from solitary confinement.
Although Fitzsimmons was not mentally resilient enough to challenge the system using Grassian’s work, the study significantly influenced legal challenges, prison reform efforts and human rights discussions — both in the United States and internationally, including in Canada. Although he was not directly involved in Canadian policy or litigation, his research has been widely cited in Canadian court cases, public inquiries (e.g., the Ashley Smith inquest) and human rights reports. His findings have had a global impact on movements to restrict or eliminate solitary confinement.
Canada has made significant progress, especially by ending the use of legally indefinite solitary confinement. However, in practice, many conditions are still effectively the same as solitary confinement. When compared to countries like Norway and Germany, Canada still lacks enforceable guarantees and faces challenges with vulnerable populations. There remains a need for stronger, independent oversight.
The history of the abolition — or attempted abolition — of solitary confinement in Canada is complex, marked by decades of legal challenges, policy changes, human rights advocacy and shifting correctional practices. While solitary confinement (especially indefinite or prolonged use) has been significantly restricted, Canada has not entirely abolished the practice. Instead, its use has been redefined and regulated, especially following court rulings and legislative reform. Although the federal government has reformed it, solitary confinement continues in Canada by rebranding the isolation cells as structured intervention units.
Solitary confinement has spawned several challenges. British Columbia Civil Liberties Assn. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2018] B.C.J. No. 53 was a landmark constitutional challenge wherein the B.C. Supreme Court found prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement unconstitutional (violating ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter). Indefinite solitary confinement was struck down, and a 15-day limit (in line with the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules) was suggested.
In Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 184, the Ontario court determined that solitary confinement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, especially for inmates with mental health issues. The case confirmed that administrative segregation breaches s. 12 of the Charter when it is prolonged or used on mentally ill individuals. The Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized the need for judicial or genuinely independent oversight of segregation decisions. Additionally, it noted that even brief periods of segregation can be unconstitutional, depending on the circumstances and conditions.
The Ontario Superior Court’s decision in Barker v. Barker, 2020 ONSC 3746, a decision condemning harsh treatment of patients in a psychiatric hospital, has been used to cast doubt on the treatment of psychiatrically disturbed patients in structured intervention units. Rebranding segregation without actual reform is inadequate.
It is not surprising that British Columbia has conceded defeat in a regional challenge. A proposed settlement of up to $60 million has been reached in a class-action lawsuit related to the use of solitary confinement in B.C. correctional facilities. According to a Canadian Press report dated July 19, 2025, the Quebec-based law firm Proactio states that the settlement still requires approval by the B.C. Supreme Court but could provide eligible class members with up to $91,000. The province “denies liability but has opted to resolve the class action without a trial.”
The class includes individuals incarcerated after April 18, 2005, and involuntarily placed in solitary confinement or segregation for at least 15 consecutive days, or when the province knew or should have known they had a mental illness. B.C.’s Ministry of the Attorney General confirmed in an emailed statement that the province has agreed to propose the resolution to the court jointly.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books) was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.