Court and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20240703 DOCKET: M55153, M55154 & COA-23-CR-1005
MacPherson, Dawe and Madsen JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Gurdev Singh Multani AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
Gurdev Singh Multani, acting in person Russell Browne, appearing as amicus curiae Stephanie A. Lewis, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario Leisha Senko, for the respondent Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Heard: July 2, 2024
On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 20, 2023, with reasons dated August 18, 2023.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Overview
The appellant appeals from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated July 20, 2023, with reasons dated August 18, 2023.
[2]
Background
On April 10, 2002, the appellant was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (“NCRMD”) for uttering threats to cause death. In 2000, the appellant, a member of the Sikh community, wrote a manifesto containing racist, homophobic and defamatory remarks, claiming Sikhs as the “Master Race”, and suggesting that other races be eradicated. After a Toronto publisher refused to publish the manifesto, the appellant resubmitted it with a postscript threatening to kill the editor. The threat had a serious psychological effect on the editor.
3At the time of the hearing that led to this appeal, the appellant was subject to a disposition made on August 5, 2022. This disposition ordered that the appellant be discharged into the community, subject to conditions, which required him to:
a. report to the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto or his or her designate, not less than once per month; b. refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer; c. refrain from having in his possession any incendiary device or materials; d. advise the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, or his or her designate, in advance, of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more; e. notify, in writing, the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto or his/her designate and the Ontario Review Board 24 hours in advance of any change of existing address or telephone number; f. refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect, with any publishing company and/or staff from any publishing company; g. not attend any publishing company; h. refrain from transmitting or publishing any of his writings, in any manner including the internet, and except to members of the treatment team; i. upon notice, attend before the Ontario Review Board as required; and j. keep the peace and be of good behavior.
4In its reasons following the 2023 hearing, the ORB determined that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and denied his request for an absolute discharge. Instead, the ORB decided to continue the conditional discharge under the same terms as those set out in its immediately preceding disposition on August 5, 2022.
[5]
Analysis
On this appeal, amicus challenges those conditions on the basis that they are not reasonably justified.
6We are not inclined to address this argument. At the ORB hearing, the appellant, through counsel, took the position that if the ORB concluded that the appellant remained a significant threat to the community, then the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the existing conditional discharge with the same terms as those in the 2022 Order. It is too late and unfair to raise this issue on the appeal.
7We observe that the appellant’s next annual review is scheduled for July 17, 2024. It would be appropriate for the appellant to raise the issue of discharge conditions at that hearing.
[8]
The Appellant's Motions
The appellant personally has filed two Notices of Motion relating to his appeal. They both ask for dismissal of the index offence on “default” and the second motion also seeks damages of one hundred million dollars. There is no merit in these motions. The appellant is appealing from the ORB’s disposition under s. 672.78(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and we do not have jurisdiction to reverse the NCRMD finding on a motion brought as part of this appeal: see R. v. Aghdasi, 2011 ONCA 57, at para. 15.
[9]
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed, as are the two motions.
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”
“J. Dawe J.A.”
“L. Madsen J.A.”