Sara Abraham

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the disposition was unreasonable, that his explanations for refusing medication were ignored, and that the Board lost jurisdiction by granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable given the appellant's significant risk, and holding that any potential loss of jurisdiction was cured by section 672.53 of the Criminal Code.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a four-year-old child and one count of breaching his recognizance.

The offence involved performing cunnilingus on the child and having her masturbate the accused.

The accused was released on bail with conditions prohibiting contact with children under 16, which he breached 19 days later by attempting to pick up another child from the same daycare.

The court sentenced the accused to 12½ months imprisonment followed by three years probation, with nine months pre-sentence custody credited, resulting in three months additional imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles while considering the accused's mental illness, intellectual deficits, guilty plea, and uncertain immigration status as mitigating factors.

The applicants, who had been found unfit to stand trial, sought habeas corpus with mandamus compelling their transfer from jail to a psychiatric hospital pursuant to orders made under s. 672.46(2) of the Criminal Code.

They argued that continued detention in jail while awaiting a hospital bed violated ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter and that the responsible authorities had failed to comply with the underlying court orders.

The court held that the detention was lawful because the original orders expressly authorized custody in jail until a hospital bed became reasonably available.

The applicants had also been returned to court as required when no bed was available, meaning the orders had largely been complied with.

As a result, neither habeas corpus nor mandamus was available, and the Charter claims were rejected.