Leis (Re)
The Court dismissed the appeal because the evidence supported the Board's finding that the appellant posed a danger to the public and that detention in a minimum security facility was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition; the Board did not err in refusing to include unsupervised community access given...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2013 ONCA 659
- Parties
- Appellant: Annette Leis; Amicus Curiae: Anita Szigeti; Respondent: Ontario Shores Center for Mental Health; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 4 November 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (january 4, 2013)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detention in Hospital, Least Restrictive Disposition, Community Access, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Review Board Decisions
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Annette Leis
Appellant
Anita Szigeti
Amicus Curiae
Ontario Shores Center for Mental Health
Respondent
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (january 4, 2013)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board erred in ordering detention in minimum security rather than absolute discharge
- 2 Whether the Board should have included a condition allowing unsupervised community access
- 3 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted and its effect on the Board's decision
Ratio Decidendi
The Court dismissed the appeal because the evidence supported the Board's finding that the appellant posed a danger to the public and that detention in a minimum security facility was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition; the Board did not err in refusing to include unsupervised community access given the limited period of progress and expert opinion; and the fresh evidence was admissible in part and supported the Board's decision.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 4, 2013 is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Leis (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2013-11-04 Neutral citation 2013 ONCA 659 Docket numbers C57057 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Rouleau, Paul S.; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Leis (Re) , 2013 ONCA 659 DATE: 20131030 DOCKET: C57057 Rosenberg, Rouleau and Epstein JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Annette Leis AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Annette Leis, in person Anita Szigeti, amicus curiae Mélanie de Wit, for the respondent, Ontario Shores Center for Mental Health Andreea Baiasu for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen Heard: October 28, 2013 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, January 4, 2013. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] At the time of the hearing, the appellant had only recently begun to make progress, which justified the order for the detention in minimum security, but would not support an absolute discharge. The evidence supported the view that the appellant posed a danger to the public and that detention in a minimum security facility was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition. We have not been persuaded that the Board erred in not including a condition allowing for unsupervised community access, given the relatively short period of progress at the time of the hearing. It was open to the Board to accept the opinion of Dr. Waisman that the appellant would not be ready for indirect supervised community access in the following year. [2] We would admit the fresh evidence as it relates to the appellant’s absence without leave and her desire that she not be required to take medication. This evidence does meet the test in R. v. Owen [2003], S. C. R. 779. The other evidence concerning the consent and capacity proceedings is not relevant and is not admissible. The fresh evidence, in our view, supports the Board’s decision, especially the decision not to permit indirect supervised community access. [3] Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.