R. v. Delagrave
The Court held the treating psychiatrist's evidence and the hospital's planned safeguards provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the Board's discretionary order permitting limited, managed community access, but allowed the appeal in part to attach two conditions (absolute prohibition on intoxicant use and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 116
- Parties
- Appellant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent: Jean Delagrave
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 February 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Review Board to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
- Legal Topics
- Review Board Orders, Community Access, Risk Assessment, Conditions of Release, Intoxicant Prohibition, Weapons Prohibition
- 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
Her Majesty the Queen
Appellant
Jean Delagrave
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Review Board to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Board's order allowing the Hospital discretion to grant limited community access was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
- 2 Whether the Board's order should be amended to include conditions prohibiting use of intoxicants and possession of firearms/ammunition/other offensive weapons
- 3 Whether the psychiatric evidence sufficiently addressed risks including unanticipated stresses
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the treating psychiatrist's evidence and the hospital's planned safeguards provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the Board's discretionary order permitting limited, managed community access, but allowed the appeal in part to attach two conditions (absolute prohibition on intoxicant use and prohibition on possession of firearms, ammunition or other offensive weapons) that had been recommended by the hospital and previously accepted by the Board but omitted from its order.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Orders
- Attach condition that the respondent absolutely refrain from the use of intoxicant substances to the Board's order
- Attach condition that the respondent refrain from having in his possession any firearms, ammunition or other offensive weapons to the Board's order
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Delagrave Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-02-11 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 116 Docket numbers C50999 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Juriansz, Russell G.; Watt, David Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Delagrave, 2010 ONCA 116 DATE: 20100210 DOCKET: C50999 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Goudge, Juriansz and Watt JJ.A. BETWEEN: Her Majesty the Queen Appellant and Jean Delagrave Respondent Grace Choi, for the appellant D. Midanik, for the respondent Heard: February 9, 2010 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 4, 2009 (as amended by the order dated August 31, 2009). APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Our role is limited to determining whether the Board’s order is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. The Crown appeals the term of the order that allows the Hospital in its discretion to grant limited community access for special purposes to the respondent. In our view there was evidence from the respondent’s treating psychiatrist that such access did not present an unacceptable risk, given the careful way the Hospital said it would manage the access. While it might have been better had there been a fuller exploration of the presentation of unanticipated stresses to the respondent, Dr. Bourget did address this to some extent, sufficient in our view for the Board to make the order it did. [2] The Crown also seeks to amend the Board’s order by adding a condition that the respondent absolutely refrain from the use of intoxicant substances and a condition that he refrain from having in his possession any firearms ammunition or other offensive weapons. The respondent does not contest this. The Hospital’s July 2009 report recommended there terms and the Board’s review that year accepted the Hospital’s recommendations. However these conditions did not find their way into the Board’s order of that year. We would allow the appeal to the extent of attaching these two conditions which appear to have been previously inadvertently omitted. [3] The appeal must be otherwise dismissed.