Beauchamp v. Mental Health Centre, (1999) 124 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 15, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 124 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

Beauchamp v. Mental Health Centre (1999), 124 O.A.C. 1 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.038

Alexander Beauchamp (appellant) v. Administrator of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre and the Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

(C31537)

Indexed As: Beauchamp v. Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Osborne, A.C.J.O., Catzman, J.A. and Farley, J.(ad hoc)

August 25, 1999.

Summary:

Beauchamp was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, four counts of failing to stop at an accident scene, two counts of assaulting a police officer and one count each of criminal negligence and assault causing bodily harm. The Ontario Review Board at the Pene­tanguishene Mental Health Centre deter­mined that Beauchamp should be detained in the medium secure unit of the Whitby Men­tal Health Centre and should be detained at Penetang (a maximum secure unit) until the transfer order was effected. Beauchamp appealed. The order was never effected. At issue was whether the Board erred: (1) in finding that Beauchamp should be detained at a medium secure unit rather than a mini­mum secure unit and (2) in not imposing a time limit for implementing the order.

The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the Board's decision, but stated that the failure to effect the order did not represent treat­ment that was fair and appropriate and the transfer should be effected quickly.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.81

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Considerations - An ac­cused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder - Medical evidence supported a minimum secure unit, the Ontario Review Board considered: the nature and circumstances of the index offences; the short period of treatment received; the accused's incomplete under­standing of his mental conditions and actions at the time of the offences; that the only meaningful difference between the medium and minimum secure units was the ease of access to the public; and the need for public protection - The Board deter­mined that the accused should be detained in a medium secure unit - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the determination - The Board was entitled to reject the medical recommendations and consider the other factors - See paragraphs 22 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.90

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Detention - Place of and transfers - An accused was found not criminally responsible on account of men­tal disorder - On November 12, 1998, the Ontario Review Board determined that the accused should be detained in a medium secure unit and should be detained at a maximum secure unit until the order was effected - The accused appealed, asserting that the Board erred in not imposing a time limit for implementing the order - At the date of the appeal hearing (June 15, 1999), the order had yet to be implemented - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Board had not erred given the lack of certainty about the date on which the transfer could reasonably be effected - However, it was unacceptable that the accused had yet to be transferred and a transfer should be effected quickly - The court refused to order an immediate trans­fer, where it was unaware of the com­peting demands on the medium secure unit - See paragraphs 31 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.90

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Detention - Place of and transfers - An accused was found not criminally responsible on account of men­tal disorder - The Ontario Review Board determined that the accused should be detained in a medium secure unit and detention should continue at a maximum secure unit until the order was effected - The accused appealed, asserting that the Board erred in not imposing a time limit for implementing the order - In rejecting the assertion, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that there was no statutory re­quirement for including a date, but that an order had to be capable of implementation and the implementation had to be effected within a reasonable time - The time frame would depend on a variety of circum­stances - See paragraph 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.95

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Appeals - Section 672.78(1)(a) of the Criminal Code per­mitted the Court of Appeal to allow an appeal against a disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible on ac­count of mental disorder where it was of the opinion that the disposition was un­reasonable or could not be supported by the evidence - The Ontario Court of Ap­peal stated that "[t]he review under s. 672.78(1)(a) is not a review of the cor­rectness of findings made in the disposi­tion. The review is limited to a review of the evidence to determine whether the Board, properly instructed and acting reasonably, could have reached the conclu­sion it did ... In undertaking the reason­ableness analysis required by s. 672.78(1)(a), the reviewing court must take into account the Board's expertise and its special advantage in dealing with issues ..." - See paragraphs 26 and 27.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Peckham (L.) et al. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 121; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 443 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al. (1999), 116 O.A.C. 291; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 473 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al. (1999), 241 N.R. 1; 124 B.C.A.C. 1; 203 W.A.C. 1; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Winko - see Winko v. Forensic Psy­chiatric Institute (B.C.) et al.

Bese v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al. (1999), 241 N.R. 131; 124 B.C.A.C. 226; 203 W.A.C. 226; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 212 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Orlowski v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al. (1999), 241 N.R. 119; 124 B.C.A.C. 237; 203 W.A.C. 237; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 220 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

R. v. Lepage (D.L.) (1999), 241 N.R. 142; 122 O.A.C. 184; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 205 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 1].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 672.78(1) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Paul D. Stunt and Gracie Romano, for the appellant;

Laurie Lacelle, for the Attorney General;

Sonal Gandhi, for the Administrator of Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre and Whitby Mental Health Centre.

This appeal was heard on June 15, 1999, by Osborne, A.C.J.O., Catzman, J.A., and Farley, J.(ad hoc), of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Osborne, A.C.J.O., delivered the following judgment for the court on August 25, 1999.