Robertson (Re)
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to meet the high burden to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Board Chair when the hearing is viewed as a whole, and because there is no treatment impasse as the appellant has legitimate treatment options at Waypoint which he has refused by not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 ONCA 417
- Parties
- Appellant: James Robertson; Respondent: Person in Charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 June 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code (ontario Review Board Matter) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated January 22, 2014; Hearing May 27, 2015
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Treatment Impasse, Conditions of Disposition, Ontario Review Board Procedure
- 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
James Robertson
Appellant
Person in Charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code (ontario Review Board Matter) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated January 22, 2014; Hearing May 27, 2015
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Board Chair's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias
- 2 Whether there is a treatment impasse requiring the Board to order conditions of disposition to break the impasse
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to meet the high burden to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of bias by the Board Chair when the hearing is viewed as a whole, and because there is no treatment impasse as the appellant has legitimate treatment options at Waypoint which he has refused by not engaging with the treatment team.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Robertson (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2015-06-12 Neutral citation 2015 ONCA 417 Docket numbers C58439 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Robertson (Re), 2015 ONCA 417 DATE: 20150609 DOCKET: C58439 Laskin, MacFarland and Rouleau JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: JAMES ROBERTSON AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE James Robertson, appearing in person Uma Kancharla, for the appellant Janice Blackburn, for the Person in Charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care Eric Seibenmorgen, for the Attorney General Heard: May 27, 2015 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, January 22, 2014. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant raises two grounds of appeal. [2] First he submits that the Board Chair’s conduct of the hearing raises a reasonable apprehension of bias. We agree that some of the Chair’s comments to the appellant were disrespectful, and some of his comments raised concerns whether the Board had prejudged the appellant’s case. But the burden of making out a bias claim is high, and after reviewing the conduct of the hearing as a whole we are not persuaded that the appellant has met this high burden. [3] Moreover, at best, a successful bias claim would entitle the appellant to a new hearing, and the appellant has a new hearing scheduled in less than two weeks. [4] Second, the appellant submits that the Board failed to recognize that there is a treatment impasse between the appellant and the hospital, and thus failed to order conditions of disposition to break this impasse. In our view, and as previous panels who have dealt with Mr. Robertson have found, there is no treatment impasse. [5] The appellant has legitimate treatment options at Waypoint, which he has refused to pursue because of his unwillingness to engage with the hospital treatment team. [6] The appeal is dismissed.