Brankovic (Re)
The Court held the Board's decision was reasonable: the Board was entitled to find a direct connection between the appellant's substance abuse and his psychotic state, to rely on the treating psychiatrist's opinion regarding ongoing public safety risk, and to impose a conditional discharge reflecting both risk and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 494
- Parties
- Subject: Marko Brankovic; Appellant: Melville Ince; Respondent: Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario; Intervenor: Person in Charge, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 June 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Part Xx.1 Review / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (july 16, 2018)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detention Order, Conditional Discharge, Reasonableness Review, Psychiatric Evidence, Substance Abuse Nexus to Offence
- 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
Marko Brankovic
Subject
Melville Ince
Appellant
Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario
Respondent
Person in Charge, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Intervenor
Procedural Posture
Criminal Part Xx.1 Review / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (july 16, 2018)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board was unreasonable in finding a direct connection between the appellant's substance abuse and his psychotic state at the time of the offences
- 2 Whether the Board misapprehended the evidence
- 3 Whether the conditional discharge order was reasonable given public safety concerns and appellant's progress
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the Board's decision was reasonable: the Board was entitled to find a direct connection between the appellant's substance abuse and his psychotic state, to rely on the treating psychiatrist's opinion regarding ongoing public safety risk, and to impose a conditional discharge reflecting both risk and the appellant's progress; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Court did not consider the fresh evidence
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Brankovic (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-06-14 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 494 Docket numbers C65966 Judges Doherty, David H.; Watt, David; Pardu, Gladys I. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Brankovic (Re), 2019 ONCA 494 DATE: 20190613 DOCKET: C65966 Doherty, Watt and Pardu JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF MARKO BRANKOVIC AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Geocelyne Meyers and Erin Dann, for the appellant, Melville Ince Sarah Shaikh, for the respondent, Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario Janice Blackburn, for the Person in Charge, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton Heard: June 12, 2019 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated July 16, 2018. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Despite counsel’s able arguments, we are not satisfied that the Board’s decision is unreasonable or that the Board misapprehended the evidence. On the totality of the evidence, it was open to the Board to find a “direct connection” between the appellant’s abuse of drugs and alcohol and his psychotic state when he committed the very serious index offences. The Board was also entitled to conclude that the appellant’s concerns about the status of his young daughter at the time of the Ontario Review Board hearing added an additional significant stressor to his life at the time. [2] In terms of the reasonableness of the order, we are satisfied that the Board was entitled to act on the opinion of the treating psychiatrist. The appellant has done well in many ways, but he has had the benefit of very close supervision, especially in terms of medication compliance. He was on a detention order at the time of this hearing. While he had nine months of apparent abstinence from drug abuse, we cannot say the Board acted unreasonably in concluding that a significant threat to the safety of the public remained. The conditional discharge reflected both that continued risk and the appellant’s progress in the preceding year. Hopefully, that progress will continue. [3] We need not consider the fresh evidence. [4] The appeal is dismissed.