R. v. Taylor (D.R.M.), (1992) 59 O.A.C. 43 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Judge: Lacourcière, McKinlay and Doherty, JJ.A.
• Citation: (1992), 59 O.A.C. 43 (CA),1992 CanLII 7412 (ON CA),1992 CanLII 7412 (NS CA),11 OR (3d) 323,17 CR (4th) 371,77 CCC (3d) 551,[1992] CarswellOnt 120,[1992] OJ No 2394 (QL),13 CRR (2d) 346,18 WCB (2d) 74,59 OAC 43
• Date: 13 November 1992

R. v. Taylor (D.R.M.) (1992), 59 O.A.C. 43 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Dwight Raymond Montgomery Taylor (appellant)

(Nos. C11156; C11765; C12118)

Indexed As: R. v. Taylor (D.R.M.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Lacourcière, McKinlay and Doherty, JJ.A.

November 13, 1992.

Summary:

The accused was charged in 1987 with aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, but was found unfit to stand trial and was detained in a mental health facility. A subsequent Lieutenant-Governor's Board of Review hearing found him fit to stand trial. A preliminary inquiry was held and the accused was committed to stand trial. The accused was again found unfit to stand trial and was returned to the facility.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a 1988 judgment not reported in this series of reports, dismissed an appeal against the finding of unfitness to stand trial. The accused was tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judg­ment reported 50 O.A.C. 315, set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. The accused applied to quash the committal and a certifi­cate of involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act. The trial judge dismissed the application and found the accused unfit to stand trial. Subsequently, the Ontario Criminal Code Review Board also held that the accused was unfit to stand trial. The accused appealed the dismissal of his appli­cation to quash and the findings that he was unfit to stand trial.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions that the accused was unfit to stand trial and directed a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 109

Insanity - Trial of - Preliminary issue re accused's ability to conduct defence - Section 2 of the Criminal Code provided that an accused was unfit to stand trial if he was unable to "understand the nature or object of the proceedings, understand the possible consequences of the proceedings or communicate with counsel" - The accused lawyer, a paranoid schizophrenic, understood the nature and consequences of the proceedings, but represented himself because of his paranoid distrust of lawyers - The trial judge found the accused unfit to stand trial because he was incapable of making rational decisions beneficial to him in his relationship with counsel - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that the trial judge applied a too onerous test - The test was whether the accused was capable of communicating with counsel for the purpose of conducting his defence - See paragraphs 40 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 109

Insanity - Trial of - Preliminary issue re accused's ability to conduct defence - Section 672.25(2)(b) of the Criminal Code gave a trial judge a discretion as to the timing of an inquiry to determine whether an accused was unfit to stand trial - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that in exercising that discretion, a trial judge must consider whether there is any dispute as to the Crown's ability to demonstrate that the accused committed the acts alleged in the indictment - If there is a dispute, the trial judge should not decide the ques­tion of fitness without being satisfied that the Crown was in a position to establish that the accused committed the alleged acts - See paragraph 37.

Criminal Law - Topic 3606

Preliminary inquiry - Adjudication and review - Judicial review of committal order - Time for - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "an application to quash a committal order cannot be granted after an indictment has been preferred." - See paragraph 12.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Swain (1991), 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Chabot, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 985; 34 N.R. 361; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 C.R.(3d) 258; 22 C.R.(3d) 350; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 527, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Trecroce (1980), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 202 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Pritchard (1836), 173 E.R. 135, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Podola (1959), 43 Cr. App. Rep. 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Steele (1991), 36 Q.A.C. 47; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Scardino (1991), 46 O.A.C. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Reference Re R. v. Gorecki (No. 1) (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 129 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 37]; sect. 10(c), sect. 24 [para. 8].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 2 [para. 32]; sect. 672.2(4), sect. 672.11(a), sect. 672.22, sect. 672.23, sect. 672.24, sect. 672.25(2), sect. 672.33(1), sect. 672.44(1) [Appendix]; sect. 672.47(1) [para. 28]; sect. 672.48(1), sect. 672.58, sect. 672.72(1) [Ap­pendix]; sect. 675(3), sect. 784(3) [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Martin's Annual Criminal Code (1993), generally [para. 40].

Counsel:

D.A.M. Taylor, on his own behalf;

Alan N. Young, amicus curiae;

John A. Sutherland, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 29, 1992, before Lacourcière, McKinlay and Doherty, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Lacourcière, J.A., and was released on November 13, 1992.