Staniszewski (Re)
The Board correctly applied the Winko test and the evidence supported its conclusion that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, so discharge was not appropriate; however, because North Bay could not receive the appellant, the condition providing for community placement at North Bay...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2017 ONCA 37
- Parties
- Appellant: David Staniszewski; Respondent: Brockville Mental Health Centre; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 January 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Review Board Appeal (part Xx.1 Criminal Code) / Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated May 13, 2016
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; Board's finding that the appellant remains a significant threat and refusal to discharge upheld; condition #5 of the disposition amended to permit Brockville Mental Health Centre discretion to place the appellant in approved community accommodation.
- Legal Topics
- Winko Test, Review Board Disposition, Absolute Discharge, Conditional Discharge, Community Living Condition
- 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
David Staniszewski
Appellant
Brockville Mental Health Centre
Respondent
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review Board Appeal (part Xx.1 Criminal Code) / Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated May 13, 2016
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board properly applied the Winko test in refusing an absolute discharge
- 2 Whether the Board erred in failing to order a conditional discharge
- 3 Whether condition #5 of the Board's disposition should be amended to allow Brockville Mental Health Centre discretion to place the appellant in community accommodation because North Bay cannot receive him
Ratio Decidendi
The Board correctly applied the Winko test and the evidence supported its conclusion that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, so discharge was not appropriate; however, because North Bay could not receive the appellant, the condition providing for community placement at North Bay was properly amended to allow Brockville Mental Health Centre discretion to place the appellant in approved community accommodation.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; Board's finding that the appellant remains a significant threat and refusal to discharge upheld; condition #5 of the disposition amended to permit Brockville Mental Health Centre discretion to place the appellant in approved community accommodation.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part.
- Ontario Review Board disposition dated May 13, 2016 is upheld except that condition #5 is amended to allow Brockville Mental Health Centre, in its discretion, to permit the appellant to live in approved community accommodation.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Staniszewski (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2017-01-16 Neutral citation 2017 ONCA 37 Docket numbers C62314 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; Rouleau, Paul S.; van Rensburg, Katherine Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Staniszewski (Re), 2017 ONCA 37 DATE: 20170116 DOCKET: C62314 Feldman, Rouleau and van Rensburg JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: David Staniszewski AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Michael Davies, for the appellant Michelle O’Bonsawin, for Brockville Mental Health Centre Rochelle Direnfeld, for the Attorney General of Ontario Heard: January 12, 2017 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 13, 2016. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises three grounds of appeal: 1) the Board did not apply the Winko test in concluding that the appellant remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and in failing to order an absolute discharge; 2) the Board erred in failing to order a conditional discharge; 3) because of the inability of North Bay to receive the appellant as contemplated, the conditions in #5 of the disposition should be amended to allow the hospital to allow the appellant, in its discretion, to live in approved accommodation in the community. [2] We would not give effect to the first two grounds. The Board properly considered the Winko test and all of the evidence in concluding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a discharge was not an appropriate disposition at this time. [3] The Hospital fairly agreed that in light of the unanticipated inability of North Bay to receive the appellant for the foreseeable future, the community living condition that was provided for North Bay should be available now to the appellant in Brockville. We agree. [4] The appeal is allowed to that extent.