Casey (Re)
The appeal is dismissed as moot and the Court ordered the endorsement to state that the appeal is dismissed as moot because a subsequent Ontario Review Board hearing found that, as a result of a treatment impasse with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the appellant should be transferred to St. Joseph's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 861
- Parties
- Appellant: McLean Casey; Respondent: Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 31 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 (ontario Review Board) / Court of Appeal Decision on Mootness and Endorsement Wording Following ORB Disposition
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed as moot; endorsement ordered as specified.
- Legal Topics
- Mootness, Ontario Review Board, Treatment Impasse, Transfer of Accused, Publication Restriction (ss.486.4/486.6 Criminal Code)
- 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
McLean Casey
Appellant
Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Respondent
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 (ontario Review Board) / Court of Appeal Decision on Mootness and Endorsement Wording Following ORB Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal is moot
- 2 What endorsement wording the Court should make to reflect subsequent ORB proceedings and findings, specifically a transfer due to a treatment impasse with CAMH
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed as moot and the Court ordered the endorsement to state that the appeal is dismissed as moot because a subsequent Ontario Review Board hearing found that, as a result of a treatment impasse with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the appellant should be transferred to St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed as moot; endorsement ordered as specified.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed as moot because a subsequent hearing of the Ontario Review Board found that as a result of a treatment impasse reached with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the appellant should be transferred to St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton.
- Order to go in accordance this endorsement.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Casey (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-10-31 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 861 Docket numbers C66711 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Harvison Young, Alison; Thorburn, Julie Subject Criminal Decision Content WARNING The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file: An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide: 486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of (a) any of the following offences; (i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or (ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant’s sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or (iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49). (b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a). (2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall (a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order. (2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall (a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and (b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order. (3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. (4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22,48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18.. 486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Casey (Re), 2019 ONCA 861 DATE: 20191031 DOCKET: C66711 Fairburn, Harvison Young and Thorburn JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: McLean Casey AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Kathryn Hunt, for respondent, Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Vallery Bayly, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario Heard: October 30, 2019 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 14, 2019. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Although the parties are in agreement that this appeal is moot, there is a dispute about the wording of the endorsement that should be made. Consistent with para. 50 of the Board’s reasons, released following a new hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c C-46, we agree with the appellant that the endorsement should read as follows: The appeal is dismissed as moot because a subsequent hearing of the Ontario Review Board found that as a result of a treatment impasse reached with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, the appellant should be transferred to St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton. [2] Order to go in accordance this endorsement.