CITATION: R. v. Snoek, 2007 ONCA 212

DATE: 20070327

DOCKET: C46139

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – DONALD SNOEK (Appellant)

BEFORE:

MOLDAVER, GILLESE and LaFORME JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Donald N. Snoek In person

Michael J. Davies Amicus Curiae

Jean D. Buie for the Person in Charge Centre for Addiction & Mental Health Unit

Laura Hodgson for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

March 26, 2007

On appeal from the Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 16, 2006.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] We see no error in the Board’s reasons or in its disposition. This case bears virtually no resemblance to the situation in LePage, [2006] O.J. No. 4486. We do not view it as one of impasse at all. Hence, the Board did not err in failing to require that alternate treatment options be explored. On the issue of whether the Board erred in failing to explore the use of s. 672.55(1) of the Code, amicus has abandoned that issue and therefore, we see no need to address it.

[2] As for the appellant’s submissions that the entire process is unconstitutional, we disagree. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled otherwise. (See Winko v. British Columbia (1999), 135 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.). We are also satisfied that the Board respected the appellant’s constitutional rights in the hearing and the proceeding was fair.

[3] Finally, we are satisfied that the Board’s disposition was entirely reasonable in the circumstances. The appellant has a lack of insight into his long standing illness (schizophrenia characterized by delusions and psychotic episodes, as well as polysubstance abuse) and he does not appreciate the need to continue his medication. That, combined with his history of violent and aggressive conduct, fully justified the Board’s conclusion that untreated, the appellant poses a serious and substantial risk to the public and that his continued detention in a medium secure unit, on the conditions imposed, is required. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.