Le Feuvre (Re)
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the October 2023 disposition was spent and, given materially changed circumstances, the court declined to adjudicate the significant-threat issue on those outdated facts; the appropriate remedy is an expedited fresh hearing by the Ontario Review Board to assess significant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2024 ONCA 626
- Parties
- Appellant: Geoffrey Le Feuvre; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario; Respondent: Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 August 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (court of Appeal Review)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed as moot and declined due to material change in circumstances; ordered a new expedited hearing by the Ontario Review Board on the significant-threat issue.
- Legal Topics
- Detention Under Part Xx.1, Significant Threat Assessment, Mootness, Judicial Discretion to Decline Appeal
- 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
Geoffrey Le Feuvre
Appellant
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (court of Appeal Review)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board's finding that the appellant continues to constitute a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the appeal is moot and whether the court should decline to hear the appeal because of materially changed circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed as moot because the October 2023 disposition was spent and, given materially changed circumstances, the court declined to adjudicate the significant-threat issue on those outdated facts; the appropriate remedy is an expedited fresh hearing by the Ontario Review Board to assess significant threat in light of current circumstances.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed as moot and declined due to material change in circumstances; ordered a new expedited hearing by the Ontario Review Board on the significant-threat issue.
Orders
- October 2023 appeal dismissed as moot
- Court declines to determine the significant-threat issue on the October 2023 record due to materially changed circumstances
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Le Feuvre (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-08-20 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 626 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0024 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Thorburn, Julie Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Le Feuvre (Re), 2024 ONCA 626 DATE: 20240820 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0024 Simmons, van Rensburg and Thorburn JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Geoffrey Le Feuvre AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Raoof Zamanifar, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario Leisha Senko, for the respondent, Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Heard and released orally: August 16, 2024 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated October 31, 2023, with reasons dated December 19, 2023. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals from an October 2023 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, ordering that he be detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”). [2] The sole issue on appeal is whether the Board’s determination that the appellant continues to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public was unreasonable. [3] The Crown has filed fresh evidence indicating that there was a subsequent urgent hearing at the request of CAMH on April 8, 2024. In its April 2024 disposition, the Board continued the appellant’s detention order and transferred him to a new hospital with privileges at the discretion of the person in charge to allow community living in approved supervised accommodation. [4] The purpose of the April 2024 disposition was to allow the appellant to be moved to a long-term care facility in Prescott. He moved in mid-April 2024. [5] We accept the Crown’s position that the appeal is moot because the October 2023 disposition is now spent: Halat (Re), 2019 ONCA 112, 2019 CarswellOnt 1885, at para. 9. CAMH took no position on this issue. [6] Despite Ms. Szigeti’s able argument, we also accept the Crown’s further position that we should decline to hear this appeal because the appellant’s circumstances have now materially changed, and the issue of significant threat should be assessed based on the appellant’s current circumstances. [7] The appellant has appealed the April 2024 disposition to preserve his right to argue the significant threat issue. In our view, because of the change in circumstances, it is imperative that a new hearing be held by the Board on an expedited basis, and we so order. “Janet Simmons J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “Thorburn J.A.”