Staetter v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services)

2026 BCCA 90 Staetter v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services) COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Staetter v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services), 2026 BCCA 90 Date: 20260305 Docket: CA51090 Between: Chris Staetter Appellant (Respondent) And The Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services and the Attorney General of British Columbia Respondents (Appellants) Before: The Honourable Justice Griffin The Honourable Justice Gomery The Honourable Justice Mayer On appeal from: An order of the British Columbia Review Board, dated September 11, 2025. The Appellant, appearing in person: C.M. Staetter Counsel for the Respondent, Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services: D.K. Lovett, K.C. Counsel for the Respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia: G.L. Nelson Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, British Columbia February 9, 2026 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, British Columbia March 5, 2026 Written Reasons by: The Honourable Justice Mayer Concurred in by: The Honourable Justice Griffin The Honourable Justice Gomery Summary: The appellant challenges the decision of a Review Board made in September 2025, finding that he posed a significant risk to public safety and ordering his continued detention at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, on conditions. Held: the appeal is dismissed. The Review Board's decision was reasonable. Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Mayer: [1] Mr. Staetter appeals the disposition of the British Columbia Review Board (the "Review Board") made September 11, 2025, ordering his continued detention in custody at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital ("FPH"), with a number of conditions. This disposition (the "September 2025 Disposition") was made after an annual review of Mr. Staetter's detention on September 8, 2025. [2] In reasons released November 20, 2025, the Review Board set out its conclusion that Mr. Staetter continued to pose a significant threat as defined by s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. [3] Mr. Staetter challenges the September 2025 Disposition on the basis the finding he is a significant threat is unreasonable or not supported on the evidence, the order for custody is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, and one or more of the conditions is unlawful, unreasonable or not supported by the evidence. [4] In addition, as he has argued in previous appeals of Review Board dispositions since he was originally detained at FPH in 2012, Mr. Staetter says the Provincial Court trial and resulting NCR decision and subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia were not fair. He seeks an order from this Court for a new trial and bail pending trial. Background: [5] Mr. Staetter is 37 years old. He has suffered from mental illness since 2004 and is diagnosed with schizoaffective and substance abuse disorders. Since 2005, he has been convicted of multiple offences including assault, criminal harassment, uttering threats, breaches of court orders, and has engaged in behaviours that have resulted in issuance of peace bonds. [6] Mr. Staetter has been under the jurisdiction of the Review Board since 2012 when he was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of criminal harassment and uttering threats. The underlying charges stem from his deeply entrenched delusion that he had a sexual relationship with a victim, a then 13-year-old girl, who he falsely believed gave birth to his child. The victims were the young woman and her father. [7] On November 27, 2012, the Review Board found he posed a significant threat to public safety, and his mental condition required him to be detained in custody at FPH. His appeals of his NCR determination were not successful. [8] Mr. Staetter remained at FPH from 2012 until 2020. In August 2020, in an effort to reintegrate him into the community, the Review Board authorized his discharge from FPH, allowing him to reside at a facility in the community on conditions, including a prohibition on drug use. [9] Unfortunately, Mr. Staetter was unable or unwilling to comply with his release conditions. He was arrested and briefly detained in July 2023 after he breached his conditions by attending at a music festival in the B.C. interior. He was again arrested and briefly detained in April 2024, for breach of the drug use prohibition. In July 2024, he tested positive for cocaine and amphetamine use and was again detained at FPH. [10] At a mandatory restriction of liberties hearing held on September 4, 2024, the Review Board found that Mr. Staetter's continued detention at FPH was justified. His appeal of this disposition was dismissed by this Court on February 7, 2025 (Staetter v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services), 2025 BCCA 66 [Staetter 2025]. [11] To date, Mr. Staetter has appealed over 10 Review Board dispositions and has brought various other applications, including habeas corpus and those associated with attempts to overturn the 2012 NCR finding (Staetter 2025, at para. 5). He has not been successful in any of these appeals or applications. Legal Framework [12] Under s. 672.78(1) of the Criminal Code, this Court may allow an appeal from a Review Board decision if (a) the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence, (b) is based on a wrong decision on a question of law, or (c) there has been a miscarriage of justice: Staetter 2025, at para. 10. [13] The standard of review in respect of the decision of the Review Board is reasonableness. Deference is owed to the Review Board given its specialized knowledge in determining the risk posed by a detainee's release: Staetter 2025, at para. 11, referring to Staetter v. British Columbia (Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services), 2023 BCCA 15, at para. 9. Analysis [14] This Court does not have the jurisdiction to order a new trial in respect of the 2012 NCR determination. Mr. Staetter's application for an extension of time to appeal this determination was dismissed by Justice Schultes of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2013 on the basis that the appeal lacked merit (R. v. Staetter, 2013 BCSC 821). His application for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Schultes was dismissed by Justice Lowry of this Court in chambers, in 2014, again on the basis that the appeal lacked merit. A division of this Court subsequently determined that it did not have jurisdiction to vary the order of Justice Lowry (R. v. Staetter, 2014 BCCA 294). [15] The only issue before this Court is whether the September 2025 Disposition was unreasonable and unsupported on the evidence pursuant to s. 672.78(1)(a). The remaining grounds, whether the Review Board made a wrong decision on a question of law or there has been a miscarriage of justice, have no application here. [16] For the reasons that follow, I can find nothing unreasonable in the Review Board's decision or conclude that the decision was not supported by the evidence. Summary of the Review Board Hearing and Analysis [17] In preparation for the hearing on September 8, 2025, the Review Board reviewed relevant evidence, including reports from Mr. Staetter's psychiatrist at FPH, Dr. Lee, and his social worker. In addition, it reviewed a number of emails submitted by Mr. Staetter and heard oral evidence from Dr. Lee, Mr. Staetter, and his mother. The Review Board appointed D. Abbey as amicus curiae to address Mr. Staetter's rights and the threshold issue of significant threat. [18] The Review Board reviewed the evidence of Dr. Lee. It noted that in 2025, Mr. Staetter had been granted privileges allowing him to enter the community on an escorted basis for up to three hours and had attended at a number of programmes. It also noted that "Mr. Staetter's residual symptoms of psychosis remained stable with minimal fixation on his delusions and no fixation on the victims of the index offences". [19] With respect to options other than continued detention at FPH, the Review Board noted Mr. Staetter's treatment team made a referral for him to reside at Manchester House in Victoria, British Columbia. The referral was declined by this facility in August 2025, due to his previous community reintegration failures and his stated desire to remain in the lower mainland. The Review Board also noted Dr. Lee had reported that Mr. Staetter was a suitable candidate for residence at Community Transitional Cottages (CTC), but he had declined to reside at this facility as he considered it to be an extension of FPH. [20] The Review Board outlined what appears to be Mr. Staetter's primary clinical risk factor, being a lack of insight into his condition, including denial of his diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and the need to remain on antipsychotic medication. It noted evidence from Dr. Lee that Mr. Staetter displays residual symptoms of psychosis, including bizarre beliefs regarding teleporting and having parts of his body replaced with robot technology, and that he had made threatening statements regarding lawyers, judges, and psychiatrists. [21] The Review Board noted Dr. Lee's testimony that if Mr. Staetter were left to his own devices, he would likely stop taking medication and start using cannabis and cocaine. In Dr. Lee's opinion, the risk of this occurrence was moderate if Mr. Staetter was discharged conditionally from FPH and high if he was unconditionally discharged. Dr. Lee considered that Mr. Staetter would likely experience a relapse of his mental state in a matter of weeks. The Review Board considered that there was a high risk he would utter threats to or stalk the victims and there was a danger of psychological harm to others with whom he had forged relationships. [22] The Review Board then considered the testimony of Mr. Staetter. It noted his ongoing belief that the 2012 NCR finding was unfair for various reasons. It acknowledged he agreed to live at Manchester House (which as noted earlier was not available to him) but would not agree to live at CTC. The Review Board referred to Mr. Staetter's testimony that he had been implanted with robot technology and was capable of mental telepathy. In addition, it noted his testimony suggesting, in summary, that he intended to use cannabis if discharged and would use cocaine but for its cost. [23] In its analysis, the Review Board correctly noted that its task was to determine whether Mr. Staetter continued to pose a significant threat as defined by s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. It put significant weight on the opinion evidence of Dr. Lee that if left to his own devices Mr. Staetter would discontinue medication and treatment, which would lead to a further deterioration of his mental health. It concluded that this could result in his making threatening and psychologically harmful statements to the victims or others against whom he harbours animosity. [24] Based on the evidence before it, the Review Board concluded that Mr. Staetter remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and was therefore not entitled to an absolute or conditional discharge. It determined that he should continue to reside at FPH with community access on the same terms as previously authorized and with conditions prohibiting the use of alcohol, cannabis, illicit substances, and nonprescription drugs. Conclusion [25] In his submissions to this division, Mr. Staetter did not set out any basis to conclude that the Review Board's determination was unreasonable or unsupported on the evidence. I am not satisfied that any such errors were made. As set out earlier, his complaint is primarily in respect of the 2012 NCR finding, which is not the subject of this appeal. With respect to procedural fairness, Mr. Staetter was given an opportunity to testify at his hearing and to question Dr. Lee and his mother, and amicus made submissions on his behalf. Disposition: [26] I would dismiss the appeal. "The Honourable Justice Mayer" I AGREE: "The Honourable Justice Griffin" I AGREE: "The Honourable Justice Gomery"