Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Tyrell (Re), 2013 ONCA 170

Date: 2013-03-19

Docket: C56213

Judges: Goudge, Simmons and Tulloch JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Leon Tyrell

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel: Barbara Walker-Renshaw and Ewa Krajewska, for the appellant, Person in Charge for Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences Leon Tyrell, respondent appearing in person Suhail Akhfar, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen Anita Szigeti, amicus curiae

Heard: March 15, 2013

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, October 11, 2012.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The appeal in this case was commenced within the time limit prescribed by s. 672.72 of the Criminal Code. There is no question of the timeliness of this appeal. We also do not agree that the decision of this court in R. v. Kobzar is material to the appeal, given that the court in that case suspended its order for a year and that year has not yet expired.

[2] The central issue in the case is the fresh evidence, its admissibility and its impact. In our view, the fresh evidence tendered by the appellant is in the language of R. v. Owen, 2003 SCC 33, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779, trustworthy and touches on the issue of risk to public safety. It is therefore in the interests of justice that this evidence be before this court on this appeal. See s. 672.73 of the Code.

[3] We are all also of the opinion that the fresh evidence, had it been before the Board, could reasonably have affected its decision. For that reason we would order a new hearing before the Board, see McDonell v. Edgar, [2006 41405 (ON CA)], [2006] O.J. No. 4923.

[4] For these reasons, the appeal is allowed.