BCCA confirms that approval of a monitoring plan submitted under an environmental permit falls within the definition of a “decision” under the appeal provisions of the EMA

17. October 2017 0
The Environmental Management Act allows for a broad right of appeal from decisions made directly under the Act and those that are made under a permit pursuant to the Act. Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Environmental Appeal Board – Review Board – Judicial review – Appeals – Standard of review – Unreasonableness Unifor Local ...

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.

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. ...

A man who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity for a first-degree murder he committed in his teens (“Leyshon-Hughes”) applied to quash decisions of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) adjourning his annual Review Board hearing and mandating provision of further medical evidence as to his risk of reoffending, and for an order requiring the ORB to establish a new Review Board panel to proceed forthwith with his annual Review Board hearing

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Criminal charges – Inmates Not Criminally Responsible for their crimes – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Adult in need of protection – Danger to public – Mental health – Substitute decision maker – Judicial review – Application for intervenor status – Adjournment of hearing – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural ...

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, ...

J.M.D.’s appeal of the dismissal of her claim for compensation pursuant to the Victims’ Rights and Services Act was allowed by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The court held that the N.S. Utility and Review Board erred in the manner in which it considered and disposed of evidence of a witness tendered as similar fact evidence.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Judicial review – Administrative decisions – Review Board – Evidence – Witnesses – Similar fact evidence admissibility J.M.D. v. Nova Scotia (Utility and Review Board), [2004] N.S.J. No. 400, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, October 28, 2004, Glube C.J.N.S. J.M.D. claimed that, when she was a nursing student in Halifax in the mid-60s, ...

Starson, who was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, had been detained in hospital and unsuccessfully appealed from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) that he should continue to be detained in a medium security unit, on the basis of the Board’s findings that he represented a significant threat to society, and that the disposition of keeping him in medium security was the least onerous disposition, were unreasonable

Administrative law – Prisons – Inmates Not Criminally Responsible for their crimes – Transfer of inmates – Public safety – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Evidenciary issues – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R v. Starson, [2004] O.J. No. 941, Ontario Court of Appeal, March ...

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 ...

Owen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the offence of second degree murder committed in 1978 while he was in a psychotic state induced by drug abuse. He was then detained in various mental health institutions and was gradually released into the community. However, he began to commit violent offences upon release. In 2000, the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), concluded that Owen continued to constitute a significant danger to the safety of the public and ordered his continued detention at the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital. At the Court of Appeal, the Crown wished to tender fresh Affidavit evidence alleging that, since the date of the Board hearing, Owen had punched another patient, threatened to kill another patient, and was found in the possession of prohibited drugs. The Court of Appeal declined to admit this fresh evidence, and proceeded to review the Board’s Order based on evidence available at the original hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the Board’s Order as unreasonable and made a direction that Owen be absolutely discharged. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the Board.

26. August 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Review Board – Adult in need of protection – Detention – Danger to public – Fresh evidence – Admissibility – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter R. v. Owen, [2002] S.C.J. No. 31, Supreme Court of Canada, June 6, 2003, McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, ...