The Court of Appeal set aside an order for treatment forthwith pursuant to s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code for the purposes of making a detained accused fit for trial. The Court held the order to be improper on the basis that the hospitals did not have the necessary facilities available and did not provide consent to the order pursuant to s. 672.62 of the Code. The consent requirement in the Code did not violate s. 7 of the Charter despite the fact that concerns regarding the patient’s liberty and security of the person were triggered when such an order was made. The Court held that even if an accused’s rights are deprived, the consent requirement ensures that the deprivation occurs in a manner that accords with the principles of fundamental justice.

24. July 2012 0
Administrative law – Mental health facility – Treatment plans –  Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Life, liberty or security of the person – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Judicial review –  Compliance with legislation –  Procedural requirements and fairness Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Ontario, ...

A man (“Conway”) who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of sexual assault with a weapon was unsuccessful in his attempt to have the Ontario Review Board grant him an absolute discharge as a s.24(1) Charter remedy

27. July 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Mental health facility – Treatment plans – Review Board authority –  Remedies – Charter relief – Availability – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies – Prisons – Inmates not criminally responsible for their crimes – Public safety – Statutory provisions – ...

The Appellant facility was successful in arguing, on this appeal, that the Review Board’s disposition was unreasonable and in error because it failed to address the need for interim measures for the detainee, Mr. Rea. There was no practical remedy because the issue was moot.

27. April 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Mental health facility – Interim measures – Judicial review – Mootness Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene v. Ontario, [2010] O.J. No. 1044, 2010 ONCA 197, Ontario Court of Appeal, March 16, 2010, R.P. ...

There is no unfettered right to possess firearms in Canada, notwithstanding the preamble of the British North America Act, 1867, which the applicant suggested incorporated the English Bill of Rights, 1689, allowing Protestant subjects to have firearms for their defence. There was a legislative history in Canada that heavily regulated gun ownership, and s.117.03 of the Criminal Code, allowing for seizure and destruction of an unlicensed firearm was intra vires the federal Parliament, as the regulation of the possession of a firearm was within the sphere of its criminal law power. This provision did not violate the applicant’s rights under ss.7 and 26 of the Charter, and there was no evidentiary basis that the applicant needed the firearm for his personal security. There was also no breach of the applicant’s fundamental justice, even if the 1689 Bill of Rights was part of the Canadian Constitution, s.26 of the Charter did not guarantee the rights therein.

22. April 2008 0
Administrative law – Firearms registration – Legislation – Criminal code – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Right to bear arms Hudson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] S.J. No. 693, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, December 12, 2007, N.G. Gabrielson J. The applicant, a doctor ...

The Applicant applied for an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision of the Attorney General not to proceed with criminal charges against two individuals. The Court dismissed the application on the basis that there was no evidence of “flagrant impropriety”.

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of Attorney General – Prosecutorial discretion – Judicial review – Standard of review – Flagrant impropriety – Evidence – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Charter of Rights and Freedoms Chen v. Alberta, [2007] A.J. No. 458, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, April 24, 2007, W.E. Wilson J. The Applicants were followers of the ...

The Court allowed an appeal by an accused from a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he continue to be detained at a maximum security psychiatric institution. The Court held that the Board had erred in law in failing to recognize its inquisitorial role and to consider making further inquiries.

26. December 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Mental health – Detention – Adult in need of protection – Investigations – Evidence – Criminal Code – Statutory provisions – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. LePage, [2006] O.J. No. 4486, Ontario Court of Appeal, November 9, 2006, M.J. Moldaver, ...

An application for judicial review by the Applicant in respect of two discretionary conditions of the Applicant’s long-term offender order which were confirmed by the National Parole Board (“NPB”) was dismissed. The NPB’s decision to impose a condition that the Applicant take medication was correct and, even though such a condition offended section 7 of the Charter, it could be saved under section 1. The no contact condition was reasonable and was therefore not subject to judicial review.

27. December 2005 0
Administrative law – National Parole Board hearings – Discretionary conditions – Long-term offenders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness simpliciter Deacon v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 1827, Federal Court, November 4, 2005, Teitelbaum J. The Applicant brought an application for ...

A disposition by the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) allowing an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity and who remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, to be transferred to his country of origin for care and supervision was found unreasonable by the Court of Appeal. In finding that the disposition was unreasonable, the Court held that the existence of a deportation order was irrelevant to the Board’s consideration whether to return a dangerous patient to his native land and should not have been considered.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Prisons – Transfer of inmates – Deportation orders – Statutory provisions – Criminal Code – Public safety – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Judicial review – Jurisdiction R. v. Miller, [2003] O.J. No. 3455, Ontario Court of Appeal, September 10, 2003, Charron, Feldman and Simmons JJ.A. Miller was found not guilty ...