Consequently, the security classification system employed by CSC subjects FSW with mental disabilities to multiple forms of discrimination. First, the legislation overtly discriminates against FSW with mental disabilities by citing a physical or mental illness or disorder as a risk factor. Second, the risk/needs assessment tools create an adverse impact on FSW with mental disabilities in that they translate an individual's needs resulting from a disability into a potential management problem.

B. The Impact of Maximum Security on Federally Sentenced Women with Mental Disabilities

In 1996, following some escapes from a couple of the new federal regional prisons, CSC announced that all women classified as maximum security would be moved to separate units located in men's penitentiaries.⁵⁸ At the same time, Dr. Margo Rivera was asked by CSC to review the mental health needs of 26 women who were deemed to be incapable of functioning adequately in the new regional prisons. Dr. Rivera identified only 8 women of the entire population of FSW who required extra supervision and treatment, which was then not available in the general population of the regional prisons.⁵⁹ Rather than transferring such women to maximum security prisons, Dr. Rivera recommended that a house in each of the regional prisons be dedicated and resourced to meet the needs of women who need a long term intensive healing program.⁶⁰

CSC did not follow her recommendation. Instead, it interpreted her recommendation to mean that women identified as having mental health needs must be dealt with in highly structured and controlled environments which could not be provided in the new regional prisons.⁶¹ CAEFS argued: "Using the need for mental health treatment as a reason to classify women as maximum security imposes harsher treatment on such women. Since this is based on their disability, it is clearly discriminatory and contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter."⁶²

Factors such as the small number of prisoners and the difficulties of being co-located in men’s prisons can significantly affect the availability and quality of programs and services accessible to women in maximum-security facilities. Examples of conditions endured by women prisoners housed in segregated maximum security in men’s prisons include:

• In the Springhill Institution, movement is severely restricted within the facility resulting in limited access to facilities such as the gym and the main prison yard. Programs are provided on the range where there is little opportunity for confidential meetings. There is no meaningful employment.

• In the Saskatchewan Penitentiary, programs are extremely limited and only offered on a sporadic basis. There are no vocational programs and only limited maintenance-style work opportunities.

• In the Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women, most federally sentenced women are housed in extremely restricted forms of confinement. Movement and access to prison areas is subject to much greater restriction than that available to men, especially including maximum security men.

FSW with mental disabilities in maximum security units may face further segregation because of their disability. They may be confined in cells for 23 hours a day, with no personal property of any kind and released only for showers and exercise for one hour daily, in shackles.⁶³