Mélanie Lord

The applicant, charged jointly with two co-accused for human trafficking offences, brought a pre-trial application for severance.

The applicant argued that being tried alongside one of the co-accused, who was also her alleged victimizer in related charges, would cause her further victimization and prevent her from testifying in her own defence.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to establish that a joint trial would work an injustice, while noting that testimonial aids could potentially be utilized to facilitate her evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board declaring him unfit to stand trial and ordering his detention at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The appellant did not contest his unfitness or the finding that he posed a significant risk to the community due to serious mental illness, but argued he should be transferred to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre instead.

The Court of Appeal found the Review Board erred by failing to investigate when the complainant would be discharged from the Royal Ottawa Centre, which was the primary basis for the transfer order.

The court also identified unresolved questions regarding the appellant's linguistic rights under the Criminal Code and the French Language Services Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Review Board for a new hearing.

À la suite de condamnations pour introduction par effraction, agression sexuelle causant des lésions corporelles, voies de fait et menaces de mort, la Couronne a demandé que le délinquant soit déclaré délinquant dangereux en vertu de l’art. 753 du Code criminel.

La preuve démontrait un long historique criminel comprenant plusieurs agressions sexuelles, violences conjugales et manquements à des ordonnances judiciaires, ainsi qu’un refus constant d’assumer la responsabilité de ses actes ou de participer à des traitements.

La Cour a conclu que les critères des al. 753(1)(a) et (b) étaient satisfaits, notamment la répétition d’actes violents et l’incapacité de contrôler ses impulsions sexuelles.

Elle a également déterminé qu’il n’existait aucune possibilité réelle de contrôler le risque dans la communauté au moyen d’une ordonnance de surveillance de longue durée.

Une peine indéterminée a donc été imposée afin d’assurer la protection du public.