Dr. Simpson

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her detention in custody and rehabilitation at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

Previously, she had been on a conditional discharge but exhibited declining mental stability and inconsistent attendance at appointments.

Despite recommendations from her physician, hospital counsel, and the Crown for a continued conditional discharge, the ORB found she posed a significant public safety threat due to marked deterioration in her stability and past threatening behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's decision as reasonable, emphasizing the ORB's expertise and the need to consider future treatment beyond mere reattendance mechanisms.

The court determined the dispositive appellate issues on the evidentiary record.

The reasons address the principal submissions, apply the governing legal framework, and resolve the controlling questions.

Relief was granted or refused according to the applicable standard of review and the merits.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of child abandonment under s. 218 of the Criminal Code.

The respondent, unaware of her pregnancy, gave birth in a retail store washroom and left the newborn in the toilet, believing the child was dead.

The majority held that s. 218 requires subjective fault, and the Crown had not proved the respondent knew her conduct risked the child's life or health.

The concurring minority would have applied an objective penal negligence standard but upheld the acquittal on the basis of the respondent's honest and reasonable mistake of fact.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial and the hearing judge issued a treatment order under s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code, directing that he be taken forthwith to a designated hospital.

The hospital appealed, arguing that it had not consented to the order as required by s. 672.62 because no bed was immediately available.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the hospital's consent is a mandatory precondition that includes having the capacity to safely admit the patient.

The Court also held that the consent requirement does not violate s. 7 of the Charter, as it accords with the principles of fundamental justice by ensuring treatment orders are executed safely and balancing the needs of the accused with broader societal and medical realities.