R. v. Gray
The appeal is dismissed because the absolute discharge was not raised before the Board and the Board reasonably concluded, on unchallenged evidence, that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to public safety; the Board's denial of community living privileges and assessment regarding aboriginal status...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 803
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Arnold Gray; Respondent: Regional Mental Health Care St. Thomas; Amicus Curiae: Anita Szigeti
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 29 November 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (dated April 28, 2010)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Review Board Disposition, Absolute Discharge, Community Living Privileges, Risk Assessment, Treatment Impasse, Consideration of Aboriginal Status
- 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
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Arnold Gray
Appellant
Regional Mental Health Care St. Thomas
Respondent
Anita Szigeti
Amicus Curiae
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (dated April 28, 2010)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an absolute discharge should be granted despite the request not being raised before the Board
- 2 Whether the Review Board was unreasonable in denying potential community living privileges
- 3 Whether the Board failed to adequately consider the appellant's aboriginal status
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the absolute discharge was not raised before the Board and the Board reasonably concluded, on unchallenged evidence, that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to public safety; the Board's denial of community living privileges and assessment regarding aboriginal status and treatment impasse were not unreasonable on the record, though the next review must include supplemented information and a forward-looking treatment plan.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The record for the next review shall be supplemented with more information, a more complete analysis of the implications of the appellant's aboriginal status, and a future-looking plan of treatment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Gray Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-11-29 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 803 Docket numbers C52069 Judges Winkler, Warren Keith; Sharpe, Robert J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache Rhea Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Gray, 2010 ONCA 803 DATE: 20101129 DOCKET: C52069 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Winkler C.J.O., Sharpe and Karakatsanis JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Arnold Gray Appellant and Regional Mental Health Care St. Thomas Respondent Arnold Gray, appearing in person Anita Szigeti, Amicus Curiae Riun Shandler, for the respondent Crown Julie A. Zamprogna Ballés, for the respondent, St. Joseph Health Care, Regional Mental Health Care, St. Thomas Heard and released orally: November 25, 2010 On appeal from the Disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated April 28, 2010. ENDORSEMENT [1] The request for an absolute discharge was not raised before the Board. There was a reasonable basis, upon unchallenged evidence, for the Board to conclude that the appellant continues to pose a significant risk to public safety. [2] With respect to the Board’s failure to award potential community living privileges, we cannot agree that the Board was unreasonable, on this record, in its assessment that community living was not a realistic possibility during the following year. [3] The Board did have some information regarding the appellant’s aboriginal status and addressed the issue in their reasons. Nor are we not persuaded that the evidence relating to the appellant’s progress or lack thereof made out a case of “treatment impasse”. [4] That said, the appellant has been under the authority of the Board for almost seven years and while he continues to pose a significant threat, he has not committed any violent offences and there has been little progress made. In our view, it is important that for the next review, the record should be supplemented with more information and a more complete analysis of the implications of his aboriginal status and a future looking plan of treatment. [5] The appeal is dismissed. “Winkler C.J.O.” “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “Karakatsanis J.A.”