Harvey M. Groberman

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code regime governing persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, arguing that s. 672.54 violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter by creating an improper burden, vagueness, overbreadth, and discriminatory treatment.

The Court held that Part XX.1 created an individualized assessment-and-treatment regime directed to public safety and fairness, not punishment, and that an NCR accused must receive the least onerous and least restrictive disposition compatible with the statutory objectives.

The majority interpreted s. 672.54 to require an absolute discharge unless the court or Review Board positively finds a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Court further held that the regime did not discriminate against mentally disordered accused, but instead promoted substantive equality through individualized treatment.

Appeal dismissed.

The appellant, who had a history of psychiatric illness, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for breaking and entering.

The Review Board repeatedly granted him conditional discharges, denying an absolute discharge because it could not conclude he was not a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code under sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

Applying the companion decision in Winko, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions do not violate the Charter and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was found not criminally responsible for various offences and was conditionally discharged by the Review Board.

He challenged the constitutionality of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated sections 7 and 15(1) of the Charter.

Applying the companion decision in Winko, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions do not violate the Charter, as they are carefully crafted to protect the liberty of the NCR accused while ensuring public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, deaf patients, challenged the failure of British Columbia’s publicly funded health care scheme to provide sign language interpreters where necessary for effective communication in medical settings.

The Court held that although the impugned statutes were not unconstitutional on their face, the Charter applied to hospitals and the Medical Services Commission when they implemented the statutory medicare program.

The failure to provide interpretation where necessary denied deaf persons the equal benefit of the law under s. 15(1) by creating adverse effects discrimination in access to insured medical services.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1 because the government failed to show that a total denial of medical interpretation minimally impaired equality rights.

A declaration was granted, suspended for six months, directing the province to administer the legislation consistently with s. 15(1).