Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al., (1999) 124 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 17, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 124 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);[1999] 2 SCR 625;1999 CanLII 694 (SCC);175 DLR (4th) 193;135 CCC (3d) 129;25 CR (5th) 1;124 BCAC 1;241 NR 1;JE 99-1277;[1999] SCJ No 31 (QL);42 WCB (2d) 381;63 CRR (2d) 189

Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Inst. (1999), 124 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    203 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.038

Joseph Ronald Winko (appellant) v. The Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute and The Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) and The Attorney General of Canada, The Attorney General for Ontario, The Attorney General of Quebec, The Canadian Mental Health Association, Kenneth Samuel Cromie on behalf of the Queen Street Patients' Council and Kevin George Wainright (intervenors)

(25856)

Indexed As: Winko v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.

June 17, 1999.

Summary:

Winko was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. In 1984, Winko was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (chronic residual schizophrenia). From 1984 to 1990, Winko was held at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute, then released. Twice in 1994, Winko returned to the Insti­tute and recovered with medication. Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provided for a yearly review of a not criminally responsible accused's status. The Review Board could order the accused's continued detention in a psychiatric facility, a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge. In 1995, the Review Board (by a 2:1 majority) granted Winko a conditional discharge under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The dissenting Board member would have granted an abso­lute discharge. Winko appealed the decision on its merits.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Williams, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported 79 B.C.A.C. 1; 129 W.A.C. 1, upheld the Review Board's decision. Winko challenged the constitutionality of the Crimi­nal Code provisions dealing with the review of a not criminally responsible accused, claiming a violation of his right to liberty, right to security of the person and his equali­ty rights.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 84 B.C.A.C. 44; 137 W.A.C. 44, held that the provisions did not violate Winko's Charter rights. Williams, J.A., dissenting, found that the provisions imposed a burden of proof on Winko con­trary to s. 7 of the Charter and that the Charter violation was not a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1. Winko appealed, submitting that the provisions violated his s. 7 and s. 15 Charter rights and that he was entitled to his unconditional release.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. Section 672.54 neither discrimi­nated against persons found not criminally responsible, nor did it deprive such persons of liberty or security of the person in a manner contrary to the principles of funda­mental justice.

Civil Rights - Topic 659

Liberty - Limitations on - Committal of insane accused - Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provided that an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder who was not a significant threat to public safety must be absolutely discharged by the court or review board - If a significant threat was found, then the NCR accused's liberty and security of the person was restricted either by detention in hospital or conditional discharge - The Criminal Code required, at a minimum, a yearly review - An NCR accused subject to conditional discharge submitted that s. 672.54 denied his liberty and security rights contrary to the prin­ciples of fundamental justice, where (1) "significant threat to the safety of the public" was too vague; (2) the effect of s. 672.54 was to impose a burden on an NCR accused to disprove dangerousness; and (3) the means chosen to achieve the legislative objective were overly broad - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the NCR ac­cused's liberty and security rights were not infringed contrary to the principles of fundamental justice - The standard of "significant threat" was sufficiently precise for legal debate (not vague), there was no onus on an NCR accused to disprove dangerousness and the challenged legisla­tion was not overly broad - See paragraphs 64 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 1133

Discrimination - Criminal and quasi-crimi­nal law - Committal of insane accused - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5644 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1392

Security of the person - Health care (incl. mental health) - Committal - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Void for vagueness doctrine - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3107.2

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Overbreadth principle - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4958

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Committal of insane accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 93.89 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5644

Equality and protection of the law - Com­mittal of insane accused - Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provided that an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder not posing a significant threat to public safety must be absolutely discharged by the court or review board - If a significant threat was found, then the NCR accused was to be detained in hospital or conditionally dis­charged - The Criminal Code required, at a minimum, a yearly review - Dangerousness was not presumed and the NCR accused had no onus of disproving that he was a significant threat - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 672.54 did not violate an NCR accused's equality rights (Charter, s. 15) - Assuming that an NCR accused was treated different­ly on the basis of a personal characteristic (mental illness), the differential treatment was not discriminatory - The assessment-treatment provisions of Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code were "the very antithesis of discrimination" - Discrimination was neither the intent of the challenged legisla­tion, nor was it the effect - See paragraphs 74 to 97.

Civil Rights - Topic 8344

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 659 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 93.80

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - General - Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code provided for an accused found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, setting out an assessment-treatment system whereby an NCR accused posing a significant threat to public safety was treated in a manner infringing on liberty rights as minimally as possible (Criminal Code, s. 672.54) - Under s. 672.54, the court or review board must absolutely discharge an NCR accused if unable to conclude that he posed a signifi­cant threat to the public - If a significant threat was found, the NCR accused was either detained in hospital or conditionally released (whichever was the least onerous and least restrictive to the NCR accused) - The Criminal Code required, at a mini­mum, a yearly review of the detention or conditional discharge - Dangerousness was not presumed and the NCR accused had no onus of disproving that he was a signifi­cant threat - The Supreme Court of Canada held that Part XX.1 neither violated an NCR accused's rights to liberty or security of the person in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (Charter, s. 7) nor his equality rights (Charter, s. 15) - See paragraphs 64 to 97.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.81

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Considerations - Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provided for the detention, conditional release or abso­lute discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible on account of men­tal disorder - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "it is up to the court or Review Board to gather and review all available evidence pertaining to the four factors set out in s. 672.54: public protec­tion; the mental condition of the accused; the reintegration of the accused into society; and the other needs of the accused. The court and the Review Board have the ability to do this. They can cause records and witnesses to be subpoenaed, including experts to study the case and provide the information they require. Moreover, with particular reference to the Review Board that may assume ongoing supervision of the NCR accused, Parliament has ensured that its members have special expertise in evaluating fully the relevant medical, legal and social factors which may be present in a case: s. 672.39. If the court or Review Board, after reviewing all the relevant material, cannot or does not conclude that the NCR accused poses a significant threat to public safety, it must order an absolute discharge. If it concludes that the NCR accused does represent such a threat, then it must order the least restrictive of the two remaining alternatives of conditional dis­charge or detention consistent with its analysis of the four mandated factors." - See paragraph 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.82

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Absolute discharge - Sec­tion 672.54 of the Criminal Code provided that an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder must be given an absolute discharge if he was not a significant threat to public safety - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "to engage these provisions of the Criminal Code, the threat posed must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: ... The threat must also be 'significant', both in the sense that there must be a real risk of physical or psycho­logical harm occurring to individuals in the community and in the sense that this po­tential harm must be serious. A minuscule risk of a grave harm will not suffice. Simi­larly, a high risk of trivial harm will not meet the threshold. Finally, the conduct or activity creating the harm must be criminal in nature: ... In short, Part XX.1 can only maintain its authority over an NCR accused where the court or Review Board concludes that the individual poses a sig­nificant risk of committing a serious crimi­nal offence. If that finding of significant risk cannot be made, there is no power in Part XX.1 to maintain restraints on the NCR accused's liberty." - See paragraph 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.89

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Discharge or release - Onus of proof - Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provided that if an accused found not criminally responsible on account of men­tal disorder was found by the court or review board not to be a significant threat to public safety, then he was to be ab­solutely discharged - If the accused posed a significant threat to public safety, then he was to be detained in hospital or dis­charged conditionally - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected the submission that the effect of s. 672.54 was to place a burden on the accused to disprove that he posed a significant threat to public safety - The court stated that "if the evidence supports the conclusion that the NCR accused is a significant risk, it may be in the NCR accused's best interest to adduce further evidence to convince the court or review board otherwise. However, this tactical incentive to adduce evidence is not proper­ly described as a shifting of the legal or evidentiary burden to the accused. ... This tactical burden exists in every legal pro­ceeding and does not violate the presump­tion of innocence guaranteed by the Char­ter" - See paragraphs 45 to 53.

Criminal Law - Topic 93.96

Mental disorder - Dispositions by court or review board - Duties of court or review board - The Supreme Court of Canada summarized the duties of a court or review board under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code in determining whether to detain, conditionally discharge or absolutely dis­charge an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder - See paragraph 62.

Cases Noticed:

Bese v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al. (1999), 241 N.R. 131 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Orlowski v. Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) et al. (1999), 241 N.R. 119 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Lepage (D.L.) (1999), 241 N.R. 142 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Orlowski v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 204; 28 W.A.C. 204; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 138 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 10, 127].

M'Naghten's Case (1843), 10 Cl. & Fin. 200; 8 E.R. 718 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161; [1991] 2 W.W.R. 385; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 1 C.R.R.(2d) 1; 2 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [paras. 19, 172].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 5 C.R.(4th) 253, refd to. [para. 19].

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. 35].

Rebic v. Collver (1986), 28 C.C.C.(3d) 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

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. 41].

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [paras. 48, 125].

Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; 110 N.R. 200; 107 N.B.R.(2d) 94; 267 A.P.R. 94; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 478; 26 C.R.(4th) 1; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 53].

D.H. v. British Columbia (Attorney Gen­eral), [1994] B.C.J. No. 2011 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

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. 57].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [paras. 59, 113].

R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (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. 68].

R. v. Morales (M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 711; 144 N.R. 176; 51 Q.A.C. 161; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 90; 17 C.R.(4th) 74, ad­dendum 147 N.R. 335, refd to. [paras. 68, 129].

R. v. Peckham (L.) et al. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 121; 19 O.R.(3d) 766; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 443 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1995] 1 S.C.R. ix; 188 N.R. 237; 87 O.A.C. 316, refd to. [paras. 69, 124].

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; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 348, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Hoeppner (H.) (1999), 134 Man.R.(2d) 163; 193 W.A.C. 163 (C.A.), dis­agreed with [para. 71].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, appld. [para. 75].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237, refd to. [para. 77].

M. v. H. (1999), 238 N.R. 179; 121 O.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 77].

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 77].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 78].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 81].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (At­torney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 83].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 84].

Blackman v. British Columbia Review Board et al. (1995), 54 B.C.A.C. 170; 88 W.A.C. 170; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 412 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 94, 168].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 38 C.R.R. 232; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 33 C.P.C.(2d) 105; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Lepage (D.L.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 241; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

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.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 112].

Cunningham v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 143; 151 N.R. 161; 62 O.A.C. 243; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 492; 20 C.R.(4th) 57; 11 Admin. L.R.(2d) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 234, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 112].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1; 24 C.R.(4th) 281, refd to. [para. 112].

Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 779; 129 N.R. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 113].

Mooring v. National Parole Board et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 75; 192 N.R. 161; 70 B.C.A.C. 1; 115 W.A.C. 1; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 113].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Pattison (1981), 30 A.R. 83; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

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. 118].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.) (1999), 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 123].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 123].

Thomson v. Canada (Minister of Agricul­ture), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 385; 133 N.R. 345; 89 D.L.R.(4th) 218; 3 Admin. L.R.(2d) 242, refd to. [para. 124].

L'Hirondelle v. Forensic Psychiatric Insti­tute (B.C.) et al. (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 7; 172 W.A.C. 7 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124].

R. v. Zeolkowski, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1378; 95 N.R. 149; 58 Man.R.(2d) 63; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 566, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Barnier, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1124; 31 N.R. 273; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Lewis (M.A.) (1999), 170 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 278; 522 A.P.R. 278 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 151].

Forensic Psychiatric Institute (B.C.) v. Johnson et al. (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 34; 108 W.A.C. 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 171].

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; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 49; 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 305; 30 C.R.(4th) 195, refd to. [para. 172].

R. v. Mitchell, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 570; 6 N.R. 389, refd to. [para. 183].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 7, sect. 15(1) [para. 13].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 16(1), sect. 672.34, sect. 672.38, sect. 672.39, sect. 672.4(1), sect. 672.41(1), sect. 672.54, sect. 672.81 [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, House of Commons, Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 7 (October 7, 1991), p. 6 [para. 22].

Canada, Law Reform Commission, The Criminal Process and Mental Disorder, Working Paper No. 14 (1975), pp. 14 [para. 36]; 19 [para. 37].

Cocozza, Joseph J., and Steadman, Henry J., The Failure of Psychiatric Predictions of Dangerousness: Clear and Convincing Evidence (1976), 29 Rutgers L. Rev. 1084, pp. 1088, 1089 [para. 37].

Colvin, Eric, Exculpatory Defences in Criminal Law (1990), 10 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 381, p. 392 [para. 32].

Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (9th Ed. 1995) [para. 131].

Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1992), pp. 219 [para. 123]; 279 [para. 134].

Davis, Simon, Assessing the Criminalization of the Mentally Ill in Canada (October 1992), 37(8) Can. J. Psychiatry, pp. 532 to 538 [para. 41].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 123].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 131 [para. 123]; 163, 164, 165 [para. 134].

Ennis, Bruce J., and Litwack, Thomas R., Psychiatry and the Presumption of Ex­pertise: Flipping Coins in the Courtroom (1974), 62 Cal. L. Rev. 693, generally [para. 58].

Ferguson, G., A Critique of Proposals to Reform the Insanity Defence (1989), 14 Queen's L.J. 135, p. 140 [para. 31].

Harris, Grant T., Rice, Marnie E., and Cormier, Catherine A., Length of Deten­tion in Matched Groups of Insanity Ac­quittees and Convicted Offenders (1991), 14 Int'l J.L. & Psychiatry 223, p. 234 [para. 37].

Hart, Stephen D., Webster, Christopher D., and Menzies, Robert J., A Note on Por­traying the Accuracy of Violence Predic­tions (1993), 17 Law & Hum. Behav. 695, generally [para. 58].

Hodgins, Sheilagh, Mental Disorder and Crime (1993), generally [para. 37].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1992) (1997 Looseleaf Update), pp. 18-19, 18-20 [para. 118].

Laberge, Danielle, and Morin, Daphné, The Overuse of Criminal Justice Disposi­tions: Failure of Diversionary Policies in the Management of Mental Health Problems (1995), 18 Int'l. J.L. Psychiatry 389, p. 389 [para. 41].

Larousse, Dictionnaire de la langue fran­çaise (1992) [para. 132].

Menzies, Robert J., Psychiatry, Dangerousness and Legal Control, in The Social Dimensions of Law (1986), p. 189 [para. 58].

Menzies, Robert, J., Webster, Christopher D., and Sepejak, Diana S., Hitting the Forensic Sound Barrier: Predictions of Dangerousness in a Pretrial Psychiatric Clinic, Dangerousness: Probability and Prediction, Psychiatry and Public Policy (1985), p. 138 [para. 58].

Menzies, Robert, J., Webster, Christopher D., and Depejak, Diana S., The Dimen­sions of Dangerousness (1985), 9 Law & Hum. Behav. 49, p. 67 [para. 56].

Mullen, Paul E., The Dangerousnees of the Mentally Ill and the Clinical Assessment of Risk, Psychiatry and the Law: Clinical and Legal Issues (1996), pp. 93 [para. 35]; 100 [para. 37].

Nadin-Davis, R. Paul, Sentencing in Canada (1982), p. 15 [para. 173].

Nouveau Petit Robert, Dictionnaire alpha­bétique et analogique de la langue fran­çaise (1996) [para. 132].

Ogloff, James R.P. et al., Empirical Research Regarding the Insanity Defense: How Much Do We Really Know?, Law and Psychology: The Broadening of the Discipline (1992), c. 6, p. 184 [para. 37].

Prins, Herschel A., Dangerous Behaviour, the Law and Mental Disorder (1986), c. 4, p. 88 [para. 58].

Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2nd Ed. 1987) [para. 131].

Rennie, Ysabel Fisk, The Search for Criminal Man: A Conceptual History of the Dangerous Offender (1978), p. xvii [para. 56].

Rice, Marnie E. et al., Recidivism Among Male Insanity Acquittees (1990), 18 J. Psychiatry & Law 379, pp. 393, 394, 395 [para. 37].

Roth, Martin, Modern Psychiatry and Neurology and the Problem of Responsi­bility, Mental Disorder and Criminal Responsibility (1981), pp. 104 to 109 [para. 128].

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (4th Ed. 1994), pp. 16, 17 [para. 113]; 23 [para. 171].

Schiffer, Marc E., Mental Disorder and the Criminal Trial Process (1978), p. 244 et seq. [para. 107].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 77, 78 [para. 53].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law: A Treatise (3rd Ed. 1995), pp. 60, 61, 62, 63 [para. 171].

Webster's Third New International Dic­tionary of the English Language (1986) [para. 131].

Counsel:

David Mossop, for the appellant;

Harvey M. Groberman and Lisa J. Mrozinski, for the respondents;

Kenneth J. Yule and George G. Dolhai, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Eric H. Siebenmorgen and Riun Shandler, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Pierre Lapointe, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Janet L. Budgell and Jennifer August, for the intervener, the Canadian Mental Health Association;

Paul Burstein and Leslie Paine, for the intervener, Kenneth Samuel Cromie;

Malcolm S. Jeffcock, for the intervener, Kevin George Wainwright.

Solicitors of Record:

Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Mary P. Acheson, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent, the Direc­tor of Forensic Psychiatric Institute;

Harvey M. Groberman and Lisa J. Mrozinski, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Kenneth J. Yule and George G. Dolhai, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Eric H. Siebenmorgen, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General for Ontario;

Pierre Lapointe, Québec, Quebec, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Que­bec;

Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handi­capped, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Mental Health Association;

Burstein & Paine, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, Kenneth Samuel Cromie;

Malcolm S. Jeffcock, Truro, Nova Scotia, for the intervener, Kevin George Wainwright.

This appeal was heard on June 15-16, 1998, before Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 17, 1999, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, J. (Lamer, C.J.C., Cory, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see para­graphs 1 to 101;

Gonthier, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, J., con­curring) - see paragraphs 102 to 198.