Sparling (Re)
The appeal is dismissed because there is no basis to interfere with the Board's finding that the appellant remains a significant threat given his history of irregular medication compliance and likelihood to discontinue treatment if discharged; the CTO issue was not raised before the Board and the Board lacks...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2020 ONCA 747
- Parties
- Appellant/person Subject to Review: Steven Sparling; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario; Person in Charge/institutional Party: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 23 November 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 (mental Disorder) of the Criminal Code / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Ontario Review Board
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detention Order, Community Treatment Order, Conditional Discharge, Jurisdiction of Review Board, Medication Compliance
- 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
Steven Sparling
Appellant/person Subject to Review
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Person in Charge/institutional Party
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 (mental Disorder) of the Criminal Code / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Ontario Review Board
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board erred by not considering a conditional discharge coupled with a Community Treatment Order under s.33.1 of the Mental Health Act
- 2 Whether the Review Board has jurisdiction to impose a Community Treatment Order
- 3 Whether the factual record supports a conditional discharge/CTO given the appellant's history of noncompliance and risk to public safety
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because there is no basis to interfere with the Board's finding that the appellant remains a significant threat given his history of irregular medication compliance and likelihood to discontinue treatment if discharged; the CTO issue was not raised before the Board and the Board lacks jurisdiction to make a CTO, so the Board's disposition continuing the detention order is upheld.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 9, 2019 continuing the detention order is affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Sparling (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2020-11-23 Neutral citation 2020 ONCA 747 Docket numbers C67872 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Lauwers, Peter D.; Nordheimer, Ian V.B. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Sparling (Re), 2020 ONCA 747 DATE: 20201123 DOCKET: C67872 Simmons, Lauwers and Nordheimer JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Steven Sparling AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE O. Benjamin Vincents, for the appellant, Steven Sparling Craig Harper, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario James Thomson and Julia Lefebvre, Person in charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care Heard: November 20, 2020 by videoconference On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, December 9, 2019. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr. Sparling appeals from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued the detention order against him. The appellant submits that the Board erred in not considering a conditional discharge coupled with a Community Treatment Order under s. 33.1 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. We now provide our reasons. [2] The Board found that the appellant remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. It noted that the appellant has a history of irregular compliance with taking his medication. The Board also found that, absent a detention order, the appellant would leave hospital and likely discontinue treatment. [3] We do not see any basis on which to interfere with the Board’s disposition. For one, we would observe that the issue of a Community Treatment Order was not raised before the Board. For another, and in any event, the Board does not have jurisdiction to make a Community Treatment Order, only a physician may do so: Re Warner, 2013 ONCA 181. [4] This case is distinguishable for several reasons from the case of R. v. Stanley, 2010 ONCA 324, 100 O.R. (3d) 81 upon which the appellant relies. For one, the evidence was that Mr. Stanley had a record of consistent compliance with medication for several years. In addition, Mr. Stanley’s physician said that Mr. Stanley would adhere to a Community Treatment Order. The appellant does not benefit from either of those factors. [5] Finally, we note that the appellant’s next review should occur very shortly. These issues can all be canvassed again at that time. [6] The appeal is dismissed. “Janet Simmons J.A.” “P. Lauwers J.A.” “I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”