ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CR12-175
DATE: 20130103
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Andrew Shatto for the Crown
Hedley Thompson for W.A.
- and -
D.W.
Jill Gamble, for the Defendant
Defendant
HEARD: December 14, 2011
JUDICIAL SUMMARY OF THE
THIRD PARTY RECORDS FROM HOMEWOOD
Conlan J.
[1] By decision released on 18 December 2012 (2012 ONSC 7202), the Court ordered that the Homewood Health Centre records for W.A. be disclosed to the Court for review (the first stage of the third party records Application brought by D.W.).
[2] I subsequently unsealed and reviewed the records. This is a judicial summary of the records that I have reviewed in order to properly adjudicate the issues at the second stage of the Application.
[3] This summary is being provided to counsel – Ms. Gamble for D.W., Mr. Shatto for the Crown and Mr. Thompson for W.A. The publication ban remains. The in-camera nature of this hearing continues.
[4] Upon receipt of this judicial summary, counsel shall contact the Trial Coordinator in Owen Sound to schedule a further Court attendance to deal with the second stage of the Application – whether all or any of the records ought to be disclosed to the defence. 90 minutes total shall be set aside for the hearing of the second stage of the Application.
[5] The records are divided in to three packets. That is the way that they were deposited with the Court by Homewood. The total number of pages is in the several hundreds.
Packet Number One of Three
[6] These records include a patient visit history, a patient billing ledger, numerous documents relating to a relatively short admission to Homewood in February 2011, and several documents regarding a lengthy admission to Homewood in the Fall of 2011.
[7] All of the records relate to W.A.
[8] In my preliminary view, the records do not appear to have any relevance to the charges against D.W., the memory of W.A. or any issue at trial or the competence of any witness to testify.
Packet Number Two of Three
[9] These records include several documents from Homewood dated August 2010 (an admission), September 2010, October 2010 and November 2010. Some of the documents relate to ECT treatments. It is unclear to me whether there was a continuous admission to Homewood from August to November 2010 or more than one admission. I think the former.
[10] There are also a few reports, with varying dates between 2008 and 2010, which deal with headaches.
[11] All of these records described above relate to W.A.
[12] In my preliminary view, the records do not appear to have any relevance to the charges against D.W., the memory of W.A. or any issue at trial or the competence of any witness to testify, except the following.
Emergency Mental Health Services Intake Information Form dated August 17, 2010 (2 pages – handwritten);
Crisis Assessment & Stabilization Mental Health Assessment (5 pages – handwritten) – date uncertain although it is around the same time as the document mentioned immediately above;
Admission Assessment Part 1 of 2 dated August 18, 2010 – this is a 15 page document with a mixture of typed and handwritten print, however, the only likely relevant portion is page 8 of 15;
Interdisciplinary Progress Note dated August 18, 2010 (handwritten – 2 pages);
Psychiatric Progress Note dated September 16, 2010 (typed – 3 pages);
Interdisciplinary Progress Note dated September 30, 2010 (handwritten – 2 pages);
Interdisciplinary Progress Note dated October 7, 2010 (handwritten – 3 pages);
Interdisciplinary Progress Note dated October 13, 2010 (handwritten – 3 pages).
[13] The above eight documents are, in my preliminary assessment, likely relevant to an issue at trial.
Packet Number Three of Three
[14] This is partly a continuation of the progress notes contained in packet number two. Also included are group progress notes, daily communication records, physicians’ orders, ECT treatment records, ECT checklist forms, anaesthetic records, medication administration records, medication prescription forms, patient profile records outlining medications, a discharge assessment report, consent and disclosure forms and observation records. These records are all dated between August and November 2010.
[15] All of these records relate to W.A.
[16] In my preliminary view, the records do not appear to have any relevance to the charges against D.W., the memory of W.A. or any issue at trial or the competence of any witness to testify, except the following.
Interdisciplinary Progress Note dated November 5, 2010 (2 pages – handwritten);
Discharge Summary dated November 24, 2010 (6 pages – typed).
[17] The above two documents are, in my preliminary assessment, likely relevant to an issue at trial.
[18] Unless and until this Court orders otherwise, all of the records reviewed by the Court shall be re-sealed in the same three envelopes that they were deposited in. They shall not be unsealed or disclosed to anyone. So ordered.
Conlan J.
DATE: January 3, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: CR12-175
DATE: 20130103
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and -
D.W.Defendant
JUDICIAL SUMMARY OF THE
THIRD PARTY RECORDS
FROM HOMEWOOD
Conlan J.
DATE: January 3, 2012