Dr. Dick Meen

The appellant, J.G., appealed a 15-year-old verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), seeking to substitute convictions for the original charges.

J.G. argued the NCRMD finding was unreasonable due to insufficient medical evidence and that the process was procedurally unfair.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including psychological and psychiatric assessments, noting the consensual nature of the original NCRMD verdict.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the NCRMD finding, particularly given the consensual nature of the proceedings and the medical opinion that J.G. lacked the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts when agitated.

The court also found no procedural unfairness warranting a new trial, noting J.G.'s representation by counsel and the support of the Children's Aid Society.

The appeal was dismissed.

J.G., a young person with significant cognitive disabilities, sought an extension of time to appeal a 2005 finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR).

The court granted the application, finding that J.G. had a bona fide intention to appeal, a reasonable explanation for the 13-year delay (lack of understanding of NCR consequences and appeal rights due to cognitive limitations), and a meritorious proposed appeal (the NCR verdict was potentially unreasonable given the evidence of impulse control issues rather than an inability to appreciate the physical consequences of his actions).

The court emphasized that the interests of justice strongly favoured granting the extension due to the profound and indefinite deprivation of liberty resulting from the NCR finding for relatively minor offences.