Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Conway, 2010 ONCA 587

DATE: 20100914

DOCKET: C48862

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

O’Connor A.C.J.O., Simmons and Juriansz JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

And

Paul Martin Conway

Appellant

Counsel:

Paul Conway, in person

Joseph Di Luca, as amicus curiae Andreea Baiasu, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen Janice Blackburn, for the respondent, CAMH

Heard: September 9, 2010

On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 29, 2008.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] We see no basis on which to interfere with the Board's conclusion that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that he should continue to be detained in the medium security ward of CAMH. There was ample evidence from Dr. Darby, supported by Dr. Langevin, to support this conclusion.

[2] In a very helpful argument, the amicus urged us to remit the decision under appeal relating to the appellant’s 2007 annual review to the Board with directions that the Board consider imposing conditions appropriate to Mr. Conway’s circumstances similar to the directions contained in this Court’s decision of April 29, 2008 relating to Mr. Conway’s 2006 annual review. We dismiss this part of the appeal for two reasons.

[3] First, the Board is currently in the midst of a multifaceted hearing comprised, in part, of a re-hearing of Mr. Conway’s 2006 annual review as directed by this court in its April 29, 2008 decision, as well as a review of Mr. Conway’s status for the year 2008. In the course of this hearing, the Board will necessarily address the question of whether conditions it views as appropriate to Mr. Conway’s current circumstances should be attached to Mr. Conway’s disposition. In making that determination, the Board will have the benefit of this court’s April 29, 2008 reasons relating to the 2006 annual review. In the circumstances, we consider this aspect of this appeal to be moot.

[4] Second, although it is always open to us to decide appeals even though they are moot, in this case we do not consider it appropriate for us to do so. Three years have elapsed since the order under appeal was made. During the course of the ongoing hearing, the Board will consider the evidence relating to Mr. Conway’s condition and treatment in the intervening period and will make a new disposition taking account of that evidence and with the benefit of this Court’s April 29, 2008 reasons.

[5] The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Signed: “D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.” “Janet Simmons J.A.” “R. G. Juriansz J.A.”