Dr. Jeffrey Van Impe

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder for killing his father.

Prior to sentencing, the applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years violates sections 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his long-standing mental disorders and substance-induced psychosis at the time of the offence reduced his moral blameworthiness, making the mandatory sentence grossly disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

The court held that it was bound by the jury's verdict, which necessarily found that the applicant had the requisite specific intent for first degree murder, representing the highest level of moral culpability.

The court found no violation of section 12, as the sentence is not grossly disproportionate for an offender with such high moral blameworthiness.

The court also found no violation of section 15, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the mandatory minimum sentence disproportionately impacts persons with mental illness, noting that those who lack criminal responsibility or the requisite intent due to mental illness are not subject to the mandatory sentence.

The moving party physician brought a motion under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act for authorization to administer anti-psychotic medication to the respondent pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The respondent, who was found not criminally responsible and detained at a psychiatric hospital, suffered from a delusional disorder and exhibited threatening behaviour.

The court found that the statutory criteria were met, as the respondent's condition was deteriorating, the treatment would likely improve his condition, the benefits outweighed the risks, and it was the least restrictive option.

The motion was granted.

Sentencing following convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace after an unprovoked knife attack on a subway passenger.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount given the public-transit setting, the concealed knife, and the offender's serious prior record for violent offences, while also weighing youth, a disrupted background, and significant mental health issues.

A four-year penitentiary sentence was found fit before credit, with enhanced pre-sentence custody credit reducing the balance to eight months, followed by three years' probation.

DNA and lifetime weapons prohibition orders were also imposed, and one count was conditionally stayed under Kienapple.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from sexual touching of a child in a hotel room, the sole issue was whether the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The court accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused suffered from a non-rapid eye movement sleep arousal disorder with sleep-related sexual behaviour, and found that his conduct occurred in a state of automatism rather than conscious, voluntary action.

Applying the mental disorder and automatism jurisprudence under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, the court held the defence proved on a balance of probabilities that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature of his act or knowing it was wrong.

An NCR verdict was entered on the sexual assault count, disposition was referred to the Ontario Review Board, the sexual interference count was conditionally stayed, a SOIRA order was made, and a DNA order was refused.