Court and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20240820 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0024
Simmons, van Rensburg and Thorburn JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Geoffrey Le Feuvre AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
Counsel: Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Raoof Zamanifar, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario Leisha Senko, for the respondent, Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Heard and released orally: August 16, 2024
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated October 31, 2023, with reasons dated December 19, 2023.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Overview
The appellant appeals from an October 2023 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, ordering that he be detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”).
2The sole issue on appeal is whether the Board’s determination that the appellant continues to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public was unreasonable.
3The Crown has filed fresh evidence indicating that there was a subsequent urgent hearing at the request of CAMH on April 8, 2024. In its April 2024 disposition, the Board continued the appellant’s detention order and transferred him to a new hospital with privileges at the discretion of the person in charge to allow community living in approved supervised accommodation.
4The purpose of the April 2024 disposition was to allow the appellant to be moved to a long-term care facility in Prescott. He moved in mid-April 2024.
[5]
Mootness
We accept the Crown’s position that the appeal is moot because the October 2023 disposition is now spent: Halat (Re), 2019 ONCA 112, 2019 CarswellOnt 1885, at para. 9. CAMH took no position on this issue.
6Despite Ms. Szigeti’s able argument, we also accept the Crown’s further position that we should decline to hear this appeal because the appellant’s circumstances have now materially changed, and the issue of significant threat should be assessed based on the appellant’s current circumstances.
[7]
Disposition
The appellant has appealed the April 2024 disposition to preserve his right to argue the significant threat issue. In our view, because of the change in circumstances, it is imperative that a new hearing be held by the Board on an expedited basis, and we so order.
“Janet Simmons J.A.”
“K. van Rensburg J.A.”
“Thorburn J.A.”