Carrick, Re, (2015) 344 O.A.C. 66 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Tulloch and Huscroft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: September 18, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 344 O.A.C. 66 (CA);2015 ONCA 866

Carrick, Re (2015), 344 O.A.C. 66 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. DE.022

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

In The Matter Of Quentin Carrick

(C59651; 2015 ONCA 866)

Indexed As: Carrick, Re

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Tulloch and Huscroft, JJ.A.

December 10, 2015.

Summary:

The appellant appealed from the October 6, 2014 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which concluded that he constituted a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and ordered his detention at a forensic mental health hospital without the community living privilege that he had enjoyed under his previous disposition. The appellant argued that he was not a significant threat to the public safety and he sought an absolute discharge. The Crown and the hospital opposed the appellant's release and sought to uphold the Board's disposition.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the Board for a fresh determination having regard to the reasons outlined in this decision.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.90

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Detention - [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 - The appellant appealed from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which concluded that he constituted a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and ordered his detention at a forensic mental health hospital without the community living privilege that he had enjoyed under his previous disposition - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The Board was confronted with expert evidence that was at times equivocal and contradictory - There was evidence in the record both to support and reject the view that the appellant posed a significant threat to the safety of the public - Given the history of the appellant's detention and the state of the expert evidence, the Board needed to do more than simply assert that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat; it had to address the conflict in the evidence and explain why it was satisfied that the appellant posed a significant threat - Its failure to do so rendered its decision unreasonable - It did not follow from this conclusion that the appellant posed no significant risk to the safety of the public and should be discharged - The court returned the matter to the Board for a fresh determination - The risk posed by the appellant was a matter for the Board in the exercise of its expert judgment, not the court.

Cases Noticed:

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625; 241 N.R. 1; 124 B.C.A.C. 1; 203 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Ranieri, Re (2015), 336 O.A.C. 88; 2015 ONCA 444, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Owen (T.) (2003), 304 N.R. 254; 173 O.A.C. 285; 2003 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 20].

Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick - see New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir.

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Carrick (Q.) et al., [2010] O.A.C. Uned. 342; 2010 ONCA 523, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Anita Szigeti, for the appellant, Quentin Carrick;

Daniel Di Fonzo, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen;

Julie Zamprogna Ballès, for the respondent, Person in Charge of Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London.

This appeal was heard on September 18, 2015, by Doherty, Tulloch and Huscroft, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Huscroft, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court on December 10, 2015.