Ranieri, Re, (2015) 336 O.A.C. 88 (CA)

• Judge: Weiler, Tulloch and van Rensburg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 01, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 336 O.A.C. 88 (CA);2015 ONCA 444

Ranieri, Re (2015), 336 O.A.C. 88 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.027

An Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Code

In The Matter Of Mary Ranieri

(C59183; 2015 ONCA 444)

Indexed As: Ranieri, Re

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Tulloch and van Rensburg, JJ.A.

June 18, 2015.

Summary:

The Ontario Review Board found Ranieri not criminal responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest. The Board ordered that she be detained on the Secure Forensic Unit until the hospital concluded that her condition had improved so as to warrant a transfer to the General Forensic Unit. The order allowed for privileges up to and including access to hospital grounds under indirect supervision and access to the community in the company of staff or an approved person. Ranieri appealed, asserting that the Board failed to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition and that it relied on inadmissible hearsay. The amicus curiae joined in Ranieri's arguments and made two additional submissions: (1) the Board, instead of determining the disposition that was the "least onerous and least restrictive", erroneously applied a lower standard based on recent amendments to the Criminal Code; and (2) the Board failed to give meaningful consideration to a conditional discharge.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.90

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Detention (incl. place of and transfers) - The Ontario Review Board found Ranieri not criminal responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest - The Board ordered that she be detained on the Secure Forensic Unit until the hospital concluded that her condition had improved so as to warrant a transfer to the General Forensic Unit - Ranieri appealed - The amicus curiae asserted that the Board, instead of determining the disposition that was the "least onerous and least restrictive", erroneously applied the lower standard of "the necessary and appropriate disposition" based on recent amendments to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code - The Attorney General acknowledged that the amendments were clarifications as opposed to modifications of the law, and that the prevailing jurisprudence still applied - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Board, in referring to the "necessary and appropriate" disposition, simply tracked the language of the amended s. 672.54 and there was no reason to believe that a lesser standard was applied - The Board's hybrid disposition was reasonable and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option - See paragraphs 19 to 22.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.90

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Detention (incl. place of and transfers) - The Ontario Review Board found Ranieri not criminal responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest - The Board ordered that she be detained on the Secure Forensic Unit until the hospital concluded that her condition had improved so as to warrant a transfer to the General Forensic Unit - Ranieri appealed - The amicus curiae asserted that the Board failed to give meaningful consideration to the option of a conditional discharge - The amicus asserted that the Board relied on the fact that Ranieri had only recently been found NCR and unreasonably failed to consider that a no-contact provision would have been sufficient to protect public safety - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - At the time of the Board's initial disposition, Ranieri denied her mental illness, was refusing treatment, suffered from active and expanding persecutory delusions, and continued to believe that her aggressive responses to perceived threats were justified - There was no air of reality to the appropriateness of a conditional discharge - See paragraph 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.93

General principles - Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Evidence (incl. admissibility) - The Ontario Review Board found Ranieri not criminal responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist arrest - The Board ordered that she be detained on the Secure Forensic Unit until the hospital concluded that her condition had improved so as to warrant a transfer to the General Forensic Unit - Ranieri appealed - She and the amicus curiae asserted that the Board, in arriving at the determination of significant risk to public safety and its disposition, relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence (police occurrence reports that contained unproven allegations of previous criminal conduct that did not result in convictions) - The amicus acknowledged that Palmer, Re (2013, Ont. C.A.) recognized that such information could be considered, but asserted that it was only admissible where it was undisputed - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the argument - The information was a form of hearsay evidence - However, the Board enjoyed a wide latitude to receive hearsay evidence because of its inquisitorial rather than adversarial process - It was for the Board to evaluate that evidence while being aware of the inherent dangers - While the fact that an accused had been charged with an offence not resulting in a conviction, without more, would be of limited assistance to the Board, information about prior behaviour that led to police involvement could be useful in assessing whether the accused posed a significant threat to public safety and in determining the appropriate disposition - The information had to be evaluated having regard to such matters as its source and context, and any contradictory information, including any account or explanation provided by the accused - Here, the hospital, and in turn the Board, did not simply rely on the fact that Ranieri had been charged criminally on prior occasions - Nor was there any indication that the Board accepted without question all of the facts alleged in the occurrence reports - The relevant facts concerning Ranieri's pattern of conduct and behaviour were not at issue - Importantly, Ranieri did not deny her pattern of aggressive conduct - Rather, she offered a justification, rooted in her mental illness, that she was responding to threats and persecution - See paragraphs 13 to 18.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Runnalls (N.) (2009), 251 O.A.C. 284; 2009 ONCA 504, refd to. [para. 14].

Palmer, Re (2013), 307 O.A.C. 322; 2013 ONCA 475, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Vancurenko (G.) (2006), 212 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Wodajio (A.A.) (2005), 361 A.R. 333; 339 W.A.C. 333; 194 C.C.C.(3d) 133; 2005 ABCA 45, refd to. [para. 16].

Osawe, Re (2015), 333 O.A.C. 336; 2015 ONCA 280, refd to. [para. 20].

Ahmed-Hirse, Re, [2014] O.R.B.D. No. 1876, refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 672.54 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Mary Ranieri, appellant, acting in person;

Anita Szigeti, amicus curiae;

Amy B. Rose, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario;

Janice Blackburn, for the respondent, the Person in Charge of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton.

This appeal was heard on June 1, 2015, by Weiler, Tulloch and van Rensburg, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by van Rensburg, J.A., on June 18, 2015.