R. v. Lamanna (A.), (2009) 252 O.A.C. 280 (CA)

• Judge: Laskin, Feldman and LaForme, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: May 20, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2009), 252 O.A.C. 280 (CA);2009 ONCA 612

R. v. Lamanna (A.) (2009), 252 O.A.C. 280 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.032

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Angelo Lamanna (appellant)

(C50089; 2009 ONCA 612)

Indexed As: R. v. Lamanna (A.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Feldman and LaForme, JJ.A.

August 14, 2009.

Summary:

The accused appealed from a decision of the Ontario Review Board which ordered him detained in a minimum secure unit with hospital and community privileges, including permission to live in the community in approved accommodation.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The matter was referred to the Board for a new hearing.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.81

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Considerations - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal from a decision of the Ontario Review Board which ordered him detained in a minimum secure unit with hospital and community privileges, including permission to live in the community in approved accommodation - The Board's disposition was not reasonable - While the Board correctly identified the applicable law, it failed to explain why the disposition it ordered was the least onerous and restrictive to the accused - In arriving at its disposition, the Board was required under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code to consider the need to protect the public, the accused's mental condition, the reintegration of the accused into society and the accused's "other needs" - The disposition also had to be the "least onerous and least restrictive" - This last requirement was not free-standing, but had to be considered at every step of the s. 672.54 analysis - The court concluded that the Board had failed to do this for two reasons - First, the Board failed to address the accused's willingness to agree to a condition that he take medication under a discharge - Second, the Board failed to address the adequacy of the provisions in the Mental Health Act that could be used to return the accused to custody if he were to "decompensate" - The matter was referred to the Board for a new hearing.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.90

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Detention (incl. place of and transfers) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 93.81 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 93.96

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Duties of court or review board - [See Criminal Law - Topic 93.81 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

Mazzei v. British Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services) - see Mazzei, Re.

Mazzei, Re, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 326; 346 N.R. 1; 222 B.C.A.C. 1; 368 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 8].

Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre et al. v. Ontario (Attorney General) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 498; 318 N.R. 73; 185 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Angelo Lamanna, in person;

Suzan E. Fraser, amicus curiae;

Dena Bonnet, for the respondent;

Barbara Walker-Renshaw, for Whitby Mental Health Centre.

This appeal was heard on May 20, 2009, by Laskin, Feldman and LaForme, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On August 14, 2009, LaForme, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court.