Vancurenko (RE)
The Court held the Ontario Review Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and its decision to maintain a conditional discharge was reasonable because the Board considered the evidence as a whole, was not bound by expert opinion, and properly accounted for factors...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 249
- Parties
- Appellant: George Vancurenko; Amicus Curiae: Jill Presser; Amicus Curiae: Crystal Tomusiak; Respondent: Ontario Review Board
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal From Ontario Review Board Under the Criminal Code / Court of Appeal Decision on Whether to Uphold Conditional Discharge (oral Hearing)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining conditional discharge affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Discharge, Significant Threat to Public Safety, S.672.54 Factors, Standard of Review
- 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
George Vancurenko
Appellant
Jill Presser
Amicus Curiae
Crystal Tomusiak
Amicus Curiae
Ontario Review Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Ontario Review Board Under the Criminal Code / Court of Appeal Decision on Whether to Uphold Conditional Discharge (oral Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board erred in ordering that the appellant continue to be subject to a conditional discharge
- 2 Whether the Board adequately considered and applied the factors in s.672.54 of the Criminal Code
- 3 Whether the Board's finding that the appellant poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the Ontario Review Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and its decision to maintain a conditional discharge was reasonable because the Board considered the evidence as a whole, was not bound by expert opinion, and properly accounted for factors (ongoing criminal behaviour, impulsivity, lack of judgment, monitoring needs) militating against an absolute discharge.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining conditional discharge affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Order of the Ontario Review Board continuing the appellant on conditional discharge is affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Vancurenko (RE) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-03-31 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 249 Docket numbers C52622 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; MacFarland, Jean Louise; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: Vancurenko (RE) , 2011 ONCA 249 DATE: 20110331 DOCKET: C52622 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Sharpe, MacFarland and LaForme JJ.A. In The Matter of George Vancurenko George Vancurenko in person Jill Presser and Crystal Tomusiak, amicus curiae Nadia Thomas, for the respondent Heard & released orally: March 18, 2011 On appeal from the decision of the Ontario Review Board, dated April 29, 2010. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals the Ontario Review Board’s disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a conditional discharge. We see no legal error in the Board’s reasons. We do not agree that the reasons of the Board with respect to the issue of significant risk to the public reveal any legal error or deficiency. [2] While the reasons of the Board do not specifically address all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, we agree with the respondent that those reasons must be read in the context of the issue the Board was asked to decide, namely, did the appellant continue to pose a significant threat to public safety? [3] The real issue on this appeal is whether the Board’s finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a conditional discharge was the appropriate disposition was unreasonable. The Board took into account the fact that Dr. Hill supported the appellant’s request for an absolute discharge. However, the Board was not bound by Dr. Hill’s opinion and was required to consider the evidence as a whole. As the Board noted, there is a long list of factors militating against an absolute discharge and in favour of maintaining the relatively lenient terms of the current conditional discharge. Significant among those factors are: the appellant’s continuing pattern of criminal behaviour, including an assault conviction and a further allegation of assault in the recent past, his impulsivity, lack of judgment, negative attitude and the importance of continuing to monitor the appellant for drug and alcohol testing. [4] The appellant has made significant progress since he has been on conditional discharge for which he is to be commended. However, especially in light of the continuing pattern of assaultive behaviour, we cannot say that the Board’s disposition was unreasonable. [5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A. “H.S. LaForme J.A.”