Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Young et al., 2011 ONCA 432

• Judge: Doherty, Goudge and Armstrong, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 06, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2011 ONCA 432;(2011), 278 O.A.C. 274 (CA)

CAMH v. Young (2011), 278 O.A.C. 274 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.009

The Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (appellant) v. Ian K. Young (respondent) and Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(C52218; 2011 ONCA 432)

Indexed As: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health v. Young et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Goudge and Armstrong, JJ.A.

June 7, 2011.

Summary:

In 2001 Young was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder with respect to serious criminal offences. He was initially held in hospital under a detention order. He had lived in the community since March 2005, at first under the terms of a detention order and, by late 2006, under a conditional discharge disposition made by the Ontario Review Board. In October 2009, he was involuntarily committed under the Mental Health Act. He remained in the hospital under that order until December 2009. Young's annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code proceeded in March 2010. By that time, Young was back living in the community. The Review Board continued the order allowing Young's discharge on conditions, which included that Young, upon notice by the person in charge of the hospital, would immediately submit to attendance and for readmission to hospital; and upon the request of the hospital, attend for psychiatric assessment, and upon notice of the person in charge, attend for admission to the hospital. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (the hospital) appealed, raising three issues: did the Review Board err when it held that confinement pursuant to the Mental Health Act triggered the requirement that the Review Board conduct a restriction of liberty hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Code; did the Review Board err in law by imposing a disposition that blended a conditional discharge with a detention order resulting in a disposition that was not available under either s. 672.54(b) or s. 672.54 (c) of the Code; if the Review Board's disposition was a conditional discharge under s. 672.54(b), was that order unreasonable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Review Board erred in finding that involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act triggered the obligation to give notice to the Review Board under s. 672.56(2) and the Board's obligation to hold a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1). However, that error had no effect on the ultimate disposition imposed by the Board. The court concluded that the Review Board's disposition was a conditional discharge within the meaning of s. 672.54(b) and the order fashioned by the Review Board was not unreasonable.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.83

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Discharge or detention subject to conditions - In 2001 Young was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder with respect to serious criminal offences - He was initially held in hospital under a detention order - He had lived in the community since March 2005, at first under the terms of a detention order and, by late 2006, under a conditional discharge disposition made by the Ontario Review Board - At an annual review in March 2010, the Ontario Review Board continued an order allowing Young's discharge on conditions, which included that Young, upon notice by the person in charge of the hospital, would immediately submit to attendance and for readmission to hospital; and upon the request of the hospital, attend for psychiatric assessment, and upon notice of the person in charge, attend for admission to the hospital - The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) appealed - CAMH argued that the Review Board imposed a disposition that blended a conditional discharge with a detention order, resulting in a disposition that was not available under either s. 672.54(b) or s. 672.54 (c) of the Criminal Code - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Review Board's disposition was a conditional discharge within the meaning of s. 672.54(b) - While a conditional discharge could not contain a term authorizing the hospital to re-confine the individual within the hospital, the Review Board's order did not have that effect - The terms imposed by the Review Board could properly be attached as conditions to a conditional discharge - A breach of those conditions triggered the breach provisions and did not give CAMH the power to detain Young - See paragraphs 25 to 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.83

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Discharge or detention subject to conditions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 93.95 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 93.95

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Appeals or judicial review - In 2001 Young was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder with respect to serious criminal offences - He was initially held in hospital under a detention order - He had lived in the community since March 2005, at first under the terms of a detention order and, by late 2006, under a conditional discharge disposition made by the Ontario Review Board - In October 2009, he was involuntarily committed under the Mental Health Act - He remained in the hospital under that order until December 2009 - Young's annual review hearing before the Review Board pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code proceeded in March 2010 - By that time, Young was back living in the community - The Review Board continued the order allowing Young's discharge on conditions, which included that Young, upon notice by the person in charge of the hospital, would immediately submit to attendance and for readmission to hospital; and upon the request of the hospital, attend for psychiatric assessment, and upon notice of the person in charge, attend for admission to the hospital - In addition, he was required to take his medication and submit to testing to monitor his compliance - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the Board's disposition - The order fashioned by the Review Board was not unreasonable - See paragraphs 34 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.96

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Duties of court or review board - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the Ontario Review Board erred in finding that involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act triggered the obligation to give notice to the Review Board under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code and the Board's obligation to hold a restriction on liberty hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Code - Confinement pursuant to the Mental Health Act was not a restriction on liberty made pursuant to any authority delegated to hospital personnel by the Review Board and was, therefore, not subject to the requirements of s. 672.81(2.1) - See paragraphs 11 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Brockville Psychiatric Hospital v. McGillis et al. (1996), 93 O.A.C. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) v. Johnson et al. (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 34; 108 W.A.C. 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Owen (T.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779; 304 N.R. 254; 173 O.A.C. 285; 2003 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Breitwieser (A.J.) (2009), 264 O.A.C. 388; 99 O.R.(3d) 43; 2009 ONCA 784, refd to. [para. 37].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 672.54(b), sect. 672.54(c) [para. 10]; sect. 672.56(2) [para. 15]; sect. 672.81(2.1) [para. 16]; sect. 672.82(1) [para. 22].

Counsel:

Jean D. Buie, for the appellant;

Uma Kancharla, for the respondent, Young;

A. Alyea, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen.

This appeal was heard on May 6, 2011, before Doherty, Goudge and Armstrong, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Doherty, J.A., and was released on June 7, 2011.