R. v. Carrick, 2010 ONCA 523

CITATION: R. v. Carrick, 2010 ONCA 523

DATE: 20100721

DOCKET: C51370

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Doherty, Gillese and Armstrong JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Quentin Carrick and the Regional Mental Health Care, St. Thomas

Appellant

Anita Szigeti, as amicus curiae
Quentin Carrick, appearing in person
Diane Chick, for St. Joseph Health Care, Regional Mental Health Care, St. Thomas

Andreea Baiasu, for the respondent

Heard: July 20, 2010

On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 16, 2009.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] There is merit to the submission that the Board focused on the risk that the appellant would breach any release order rather than on the risk to public safety that may have been occasioned were the appellant to breach a condition of the release order. The two risks are not the same and it is the latter inquiry that must be made under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code.

[2] The fresh evidence has convinced us that this court should not interfere with the order made by the Board. The appellant was returned to the institution after he reported his own relapse into substance abuse. He is now back in the community under the terms of a detention order that would allow the hospital to return him to the institution if necessary.

[3] The appellant will be back before the Board in three months. He can renew his argument for a conditional discharge. We agree with amicus that the recent events offer support for the argument that the appellant has reached a point where a conditional discharge would be an appropriate disposition. At the next hearing, the Board must focus on the question of whether the risk to the public can be safely managed under terms imposed as part of a conditional discharge and not simply on the risk that the appellant will breach any release order by consuming alcohol or some other illicit substance.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.