Ontario v. Phaneuf

Ontario v. Phaneuf

It is plain and obvious that the Criminal Code does not require immediate transfer of persons ordered assessed under s.672.11 to the designated hospital; detention in a detention centre pursuant to lawful assessment orders does not, by itself, constitute a s.7 or s.9 Charter violation; claims for a Crown fiduciary duty or for breach of an alleged order in R. v. Hussein fail; accordingly the statement of claim discloses no arguable cause of action and was properly struck.

Citation
2010 ONCA 901
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Sylvie Phaneuf; Defendant (respondent): Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario; Intervener: CLA
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (class Action; Charter; Tort; Negligence) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Divisional Court Order Striking Statement of Claim; Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Divisional Court order striking statement of claim upheld
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.9, Charter S.24(1) Remedies, Criminal Code S.672.11 672.17 Assessments, Fiduciary Duty of the Crown, Negligence/funding Decisions, Plain and Obvious Test for Pleadings, Enforceability of Judicial Reasons Vs Orders
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Administrative Law Class Actions Charter S.7 Charter S.9 +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvie Phaneuf

Plaintiff (appellant)

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Defendant (respondent)

CLA

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil (class Action; Charter; Tort; Negligence) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Divisional Court Order Striking Statement of Claim; Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Criminal Code requires immediate transfer of persons ordered assessed under s.672.11 to a hospital and prohibits interim detention in a jail
  2. 2 Whether detention in a detention centre pending hospital bed availability, pursuant to lawful assessment orders, gives rise to a s.7 or s.9 Charter violation
  3. 3 Whether the Crown owes a fiduciary duty to accused in custody to place them in hospital immediately

Ratio Decidendi

It is plain and obvious that the Criminal Code does not require immediate transfer of persons ordered assessed under s.672.11 to the designated hospital; detention in a detention centre pursuant to lawful assessment orders does not, by itself, constitute a s.7 or s.9 Charter violation; claims for a Crown fiduciary duty or for breach of an alleged order in R. v. Hussein fail; accordingly the statement of claim discloses no arguable cause of action and was properly struck.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Divisional Court order striking statement of claim upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without costs