Dr. McDonald

The appellant, who was designated a dangerous offender and given an indeterminate sentence in 1988, appealed the dismissal of his application for habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the original sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to order a psychiatric remand under the Criminal Code and failed to invoke the Mental Health Act.

Furthermore, the sentencing judge erred by fettering his discretion when he concluded he had no choice but to impose the dangerous offender designation if statutory criteria were met.

The habeas corpus application was granted, the dangerous offender designation was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a fresh sentencing hearing.

The Crown applied for a voir dire to determine the admissibility of a 911 call made by the complainant and a statement given by the accused to police.

The court found the 911 call admissible under the res gestae and principled exceptions to the hearsay rule, noting its necessity due to challenges in domestic violence cases and high reliability.

The accused's statement was found voluntary and admissible, as the accused possessed an operating mind despite mistaken beliefs about the law, and there was no evidence of threats, inducements, oppression, or police trickery.

Both Crown applications were allowed.

The offender was acquitted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle but found guilty of criminal harassment by indictment.

The court imposed a 15-month custodial sentence with credit for 438 days of pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

The sentence addressed the offender's recidivist history of criminal harassment, particularly involving domestic partners, his lack of impulse control, and the ongoing impact on the victim.

The court balanced denunciation and specific deterrence with rehabilitation, emphasizing the offender's need to engage with probationary resources and psychological programming.

The appellant appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for assault causing bodily harm, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to explain the consequences of an NCR finding and that the trial judge erred by not conducting a plea inquiry.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge erred in failing to conduct a plea inquiry for a proceeding that was the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court rejected the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding trial counsel had properly advised the appellant, and concluded there was ample psychiatric evidence to support the NCR finding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's reliance on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant posed a significant risk of violence to hospital staff if he remained in a medium secure facility without a medication change.

The court found it was reasonable for the Board to rely on evidence regarding enhanced security and potential privileges at Waypoint.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following convictions for criminal harassment and breaches of probation, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal history including numerous sexual offences, violent offences, and repeated breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric assessments diagnosing schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, paraphilias, and substance abuse disorders.

Expert evidence established a high risk of future sexual violence and persistent failure to restrain behaviour.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

The offender failed to establish that community management would adequately protect the public, and the court imposed a penitentiary sentence followed by long‑term supervision.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a 2009 finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) to which she had consented.

She argued the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence did not establish she failed to appreciate the nature and quality of her acts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to adequately explain the nearly four-year delay and that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as there was sufficient evidence from the psychiatric assessment and surrounding circumstances to support the NCRMD finding.

The appellant, who had a long history of mental illness, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for robbery and resisting arrest.

He appealed the finding, arguing it was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the psychiatric evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellant was incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The NCRMD verdicts were set aside, a conviction was entered for robbery, and a new trial was ordered for resisting arrest.

The appellant was sentenced to one day in jail for the robbery, considering the 44 months he had already spent in custody.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 28 years, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention.

The appellant had a long-standing practice of refusing to attend Board hearings, refusing counsel, and refusing all psychiatric treatment.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred in law by failing to recognize its inquisitorial role under the Criminal Code.

Given the treatment impasse, the Board had a duty to consider making further inquiries rather than simply recapitulating the static situation.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered, with the Court noting the Board has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae to assist in such cases.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, and sought to introduce fresh evidence to establish he should be declared a long-term offender.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the evidence.

The fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test, as it did not show a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder after a second trial, the first having resulted in a hung jury on that count but a finding of guilt on the included offence of aggravated assault.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing autrefois convict and errors in the jury charge.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's dismissal of a dangerous offender application and the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeals, holding that autrefois convict requires a final adjudication including a sentence.

The Court allowed the Crown's dangerous offender appeal, ordering a new hearing because the trial judge failed to properly assess the brutality threshold and the psychiatric evidence regarding the appellant's sexual sadism.

The Crown's sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who suffered from schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, was arrested on outstanding warrants and subsequently confessed to a murder and several robberies.

He waived his right to counsel multiple times, despite advice from a lawyer to remain silent, claiming voices in his head compelled him to confess.

The trial judge excluded the statements, finding the appellant lacked the capacity to appreciate the consequences of waiving his rights, leading to an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'operating mind' test applies to the confession rule and the waiver of Charter rights, requiring only that the accused have sufficient cognitive capacity to understand what they are saying and that it can be used against them, which the appellant possessed.