R. v. Lepage (D.L.), (1997) 103 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

• Judge: Doherty, Charron and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 03, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1997), 103 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

R. v. Lepage (D.L.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 241 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.017

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Denis Lucien Lepage (respondent) and the Attorney General of Canada (intervener) and Queen Street Patients' Council and CAVEAT (intervener)

(C21544)

Indexed As: R. v. Lepage (D.L.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Doherty, Charron and Goudge, JJ.A.

October 3, 1997.

Summary:

Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code provided for a post-verdict disposition hearing by a court or review board once a person was found not criminally responsible for his or her actions by reason of mental disorder. Section 672.54 set out the possible disposi­tions following a post-verdict risk assess­ment and the criteria governing the making of disposi­tion orders. An accused subject to Part XX.1 applied under s. 52 of the Consti­tution Act, 1982, for a declaration that s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code was discrimi­natory and con­trary to s. 15 of the Charter. The accused also applied for habeas corpus on the same ground. The trial judge held that s. 672.54 discriminated against the accused and others on the basis of their mental dis­ability and that the discrimination could not be justified under s. 1. The trial judge struck down s. 672.54 but suspended the declar­ation for six months. The Crown appealed. The suspen­sion of the declaration of invalid­ity was continued by the Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Doherty and Charron, JJ.A., allowed the appeal hold­ing that s. 15 of the Charter was not infringed. The court set aside the order of the trial judge and dismissed both of the accused's applications. Goudge, J.A., con­curred in the result, but held that s. 672.54 infringed s. 15 although it was saved by s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1133

Discrimination - Criminal and quasi-crimi­nal law - Committal of or disposition re accused with mental disorder (insanity) - Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code pro­vided for a post-verdict disposition hear­ing by a court or review board once a person was found not criminally respon­sible by reason of mental disorder - Sec­tion 672.54 set out the possible disposi­tions following a post-verdict risk assess­ment and the applicable criteria - An accused subject to Part XX.1 alleged that s. 672.54 was discriminatory (Charter, s. 15) - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that there was no limitation on the ac­cused's equality rights arising out of the verdict itself, the requirement of a post-verdict risk assess­ment, or the criteria employed in deter­mining the appropriate post-verdict dispo­sition - Further the court stated that it found no such limitation when the three facets of the scheme were considered as a whole - See paragraphs 47 to 81.

Criminal Law - Topic 92.1

Mental disorder - General - Section 16 of the Criminal Code provided that a person was not criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that ren­dered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the nature and scope of the exemption created by s. 16 - See paragraphs 17 to 30 - The court stated, inter alia, that it was a misnomer to refer to persons found not criminally responsible under s. 16 as hav­ing been acquitted - See paragraphs 22, 41 and 84.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.80

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1133 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 93.80

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - General - Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code provided for a post-verdict disposition hearing by a court or review board once a person was found not crimi­nal­ly responsible for his or her actions by reason of mental disorder - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed Part XX.1 - The court stated, inter alia, that there is no presumption that an accused who is found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder is dangerous or should be confined pending the outcome of a dispo­sition hearing - Any presumption favours the status quo pending disposition - Any restraint of the accused's liberty must be justified under specific statutory provisions relating to bail or assessment orders and will be imposed only after inquiry into the specific circumstances of the case and the accused - See paragraphs 31 to 58.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.80

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - General - Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code provided for a post-verdict disposition hearing by a court or review board once a person is found not criminal­ly responsible for his or her actions by reason of mental disorder - Section 672.54 set out the possible dispositions following a post-verdict risk assessment and the criteria governing the making of disposi­tion orders - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the procedure under s. 672.54 - See paragraphs 59 to 81.

Cases Noticed:

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 286, refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

R. v. Porter (1933), 55 C.L.R. 182 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [paras. 12, 89].

R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871; 140 N.R. 161; 55 O.A.C. 241; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 287, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Stone (B.T.) (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 169; 142 W.A.C. 169; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Rabey (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 461 (Ont. C.A.), affd. [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451 54 C.C.C.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Simpson (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 337 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Kjeldsen, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 617; 39 N.R. 376; 34 A.R. 576; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Oommen (M.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507; 168 N.R. 200; 155 A.R. 190; 73 W.A.C. 190; 91 C.C.C.(3d) 8, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [paras. 29, 119].

R. v. Olah (S.) and Ruston (J.D.) (1997), 100 O.A.C. 1; 33 O.R.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al. (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 44; 137 W.A.C. 44; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 31 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1997), 216 N.R. 400; 88 B.C.A.C. 80; 144 W.A.C. 80 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 30, 124].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 34 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 36 C.R.R. 193; 25 C.C.E.L. 255, refd to. [para. 48].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253, refd to. [paras. 49, 90].

M. v. H. (1996), 96 O.A.C. 173; 31 O.R.(3d) 417 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1997), 215 N.R. 400; 100 O.A.C. 159 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 49, 100].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [paras. 50. 91].

R. v. Peckham (L.) et al. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 121; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 443 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1995), 188 N.R. 237; 87 O.A.C. 316; 37 C.R.(4th) 399 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 9; para. 122].

Pinet v. R. et al. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 307; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Chambers v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al. (1997), 94 B.C.A.C. 28; 152 W.A.C. 28; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 406 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161; 34 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 71].

Davidson v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al. (1993), 31 B.C.A.C. 111; 50 W.A.C. 111; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 90].

Thibaudeau v. Minister of National Revenue, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 627; 182 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Battlefords and District Co-operative Ltd. v. Gibbs and Human Rights Commission (Sask), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 566; 203 N.R. 131; 148 Sask.R. 1; 134 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society et al. (No. 2), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606; 139 N.R. 241; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 313 A.P.R. 91; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 121].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 6 et seq.]; sect. 15 [para. 5 et seq].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, Part XX.1 [para. 5 et seq.]; sect. 2 [para. 25]; sect. 16 [para. 18]; sect. 672.34 [para. 20]; sect. 672.35, sect. 672.36, sect. 672.37 [para. 21]; sect. 672.46(1) [para. 41]; sect. 672.46(2) [para. 42]; sect. 672.47 [para. 4]; sect. 672.54 [paras. 60, 88]; sect. 672.56 [para. 65].

Counsel:

James A. Ramsay and Eric Siebenmorgen, for the appellant;

Daniel J. Brodsky and Mara Greene, for the respondent;

George G. Dolhai, for the Attorney General of Canada;

Janet Budgell and Jonathan Batty, for the Canadian Mental Health Association;

Leslie Paine, for the intervener, Jennifer Chambers;

Timothy S.B. Danson, for the intervener Canadians Against Violence Everywhere.

This appeal was heard on February 25 and 26, 1997, before Doherty, Charron and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On October 3, 1997, the judgment of the court was rendered and the following opinions were filed:

Doherty, J.A. (Charron, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 81;

Goudge, J.A., concurring - see para­graphs 82 to 129.