COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Runnalls (Re), 2013 ONCA 386

DATE: 20130611

DOCKET: C56203

Blair, Hoy and Tulloch JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF: Nelson Runnalls

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE

Nelson Shaun Runnalls, acting in person

Michael Davies, as amicus curiae

Grace Choi, for the Attorney General

Janice E. Blackburn, for the General Forensic Unit of North Bay Regional Centre

Heard and released orally: June 4, 2013

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, July 26, 2012.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the Ontario Review Board’s disposition of July 26, 2012 ordering that he continue to be detained subject to conditions.

[2] Amicus argues that the Board failed to address the two Charter applications brought by the appellant, misapprehended the evidence, and erred by failing to grant a conditional discharge.

[3] We are not persuaded that the Board erred and accordingly dismiss this appeal.

[4] The appellant, who was assisted by amicus before the Board, made no submissions to support his Charter applications. One application alleged breach of s. 8 of the Charter without providing any particulars of the alleged breach. The other application did not specify the Charter right allegedly breached. As remedies, the appellant sought an order striking the current diagnosis in the hospital report, an order for an independent assessment and an order for a fresh transcription of the trial of the index offence. The Board concluded that the issues that the appellant asked it to deal with were already comprised in the annual review, beyond the jurisdiction of the Board or irrelevant to the issues before the Board. We note that this court had just recently dismissed an appeal by the appellant of a prior disposition order which declined to order an independent assessment. We see no merit to this ground of appeal.

[5] Nor are we persuaded that the Board misapprehended the evidence in any material way.

[6] Finally, the Board’s conclusion that continued detention – as opposed to an absolute or conditional discharge – was warranted is adequately supported by its reasons. We note in particular the Board’s reference to the evidence of the need, in the circumstances, for the hospital to approve where the appellant will reside.

[7] We see no need to consider the fresh evidence in light of our disposition on this appeal.

[8] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

“R.A. Blair J.A.”

“Alexandra Hoy J.A.”

“M. Tulloch J.A.”