Trudel (Re)

Trudel (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-12-20 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 926 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0455 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Gillese, Eileen E.; Roberts, Lois B. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Trudel (Re), 2024 ONCA 926 DATE: 20241220 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0455 MacPherson, Gillese and Roberts JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Chantal Trudel AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Michael Davies, for the appellant Brent Kettles, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario Hilary Chung, for the respondent Person in Charge of Brockville Mental Health Centre Heard: December 16, 2024 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated January 17, 2024, with reasons dated March 22, 2024. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On December 10, 2008, the appellant Chantal Trudel was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of aggravated assault. She has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) since that disposition sixteen years ago. [2] The circumstances of the index offences were described in the Hospital Report prepared by the Brockville Mental Health Centre for the ORB’s annual hearing relating to the appellant held in January 2024: On October 25, 2008, Ms. Trudel agreed to have sex with Mr. N. for $60. He paid her $20 and said he would pay the balance after they had sex. At some point they were lying naked on a futon, when she pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the chest. Mr. N. reported that this was unprovoked and that Ms. Trudel did not say a word, “like a robot or something.” He suffered two chest wounds. She dressed and fled. He called 911. Ms. Trudel was later arrested and charged with aggravated assault. [3] Following a hearing on January 15, 2024, a unanimous five person panel of the ORB determined that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and upheld the current Detention Order without changes. [4] The appellant raises a single ground of appeal: [T]he Board failed to analyze her threat to the public in accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence. Specifically, the Board did not consider either the likelihood of any risk to the public materializing nor did it consider the seriousness of the harm that might occur. [5] We do not accept this submission. The ORB cited and explicitly applied the test for “significant threat” set out in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. The ORB said: The term “significant threat” is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code as “a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to a member of the public … resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent.” To state the Winko jurisprudence in only a nutshell: A finding of significant threat cannot be speculative; it must be based on evidence. It requires positive findings, supported by evidence, that the threat of a person engaging in criminal conduct is “real”, and that the harm this would cause to others will be “serious”. Both findings are required: neither a miniscule risk of grave harm, nor a high risk of trivial harm, is sufficient. [6] Against the backdrop of the Winko test, the ORB considered all of the evidence and reached a clear and specific conclusion about the risk of the appellant harming other people if she were granted an absolute discharge: In Ms. Trudel’s circumstances, the significant threat to the safety of others arises from two crucial risk factors: the diagnosed major mental illness of schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders. … Based on all the evidence, we find that, should Ms. Trudel be without oversight under the Board’s jurisdiction for the year ahead, there is a real risk that she would … not be able to establish a safe and secure home in the community, would return to street life, and the scenario put succinctly by Dr. Gulati in his evidence … would unfold: … [I]t is not likely she would take her medications, her symptoms would increase, including paranoia that people are out to harm her and get her, and then to protect herself she will strike out and be a risk to other people. [7] We see no error in this analysis and conclusion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. “J.C. MacPherson J.A.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.”