Labadie (Re)
Given the evidence of ongoing clinical concerns and the parties' joint submission accepting that significant threat was established, the Ontario Review Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was reasonable and must be upheld; therefore the appellant's request for an absolute...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2019 ONCA 75
- Parties
- Appellant: Nicole Labadie; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario; Respondent: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 February 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / On Appeal From the Disposition of the Ontario Review Board
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; Ontario Review Board's finding of continued significant threat upheld
- Legal Topics
- Review Board Proceedings, Significant Threat Finding, Conditional Discharge, Absolute Discharge, Reasonableness 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
Nicole Labadie
Appellant
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / On Appeal From the Disposition of the Ontario Review Board
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to an absolute discharge despite requesting a conditional discharge
- 3 Effect of the parties' joint submission that significant threat was accepted
Ratio Decidendi
Given the evidence of ongoing clinical concerns and the parties' joint submission accepting that significant threat was established, the Ontario Review Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was reasonable and must be upheld; therefore the appellant's request for an absolute discharge was denied.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; Ontario Review Board's finding of continued significant threat upheld
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; request for absolute discharge denied
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Labadie (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-02-06 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 75 Docket numbers C65479 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; Lauwers, Peter D.; Nordheimer, Ian V.B. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Labadie (Re), 2019 ONCA 75 DATE: 20190204 DOCKET: C65479 Feldman, Lauwers and Nordheimer JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Nicole Labadie AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Stephen Gehl, for the appellant Jeremy Tatum, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario Julie Zamprogna Balles, for the respondent Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care Heard and released orally: January 28, 2019 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 1, 2018. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant’s position on this appeal is that the Ontario Review Board’s decision that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the community was unreasonable and therefore she should have been discharged absolutely even though she asked the Board for a conditional discharge. The only remedy she seeks on this appeal is an absolute discharge. [2] The basis for the argument that the finding of significant threat was unreasonable is the evidence that the appellant was functioning for almost a year in full compliance with the order for conditional discharge made by the trial judge. While that was true, the doctor did not have full information about the appellant and remained concerned about the serious nature of the index offence, the appellant’s history of substance abuse and her continuing experience of symptoms of her mental condition. [3] In any event, all parties made a joint submission to the Board that significant threat was accepted and not an issue for the Board. [4] In our view, on the evidence and given the joint submission, the decision of the Board that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was a reasonable one. [5] Counsel advised that the next annual review is scheduled for February 5, 2019, where the Board will have the opportunity to address the issues on the current state of the evidence, and the proper disposition. The latter issue was not raised before us. “K. Feldman J.A.” “P. Lauwers J.A.” “I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”