Marchese (Re)

Marchese (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2020-02-03 Neutral citation 2020 ONCA 80 Docket numbers C66927 Judges Doherty, David H.; Watt, David; Hourigan, C. William Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Marchese (Re), 2020 ONCA 80 DATE: 20200203 DOCKET: C66927 Doherty, Watt and Hourigan JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF MARY MARCHESE AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE BETWEEN Person in Charge of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton Appellant and Mary Marchese Respondent and Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Janice E. Blackburn, for the appellant, Person in Charge of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton Russell Browne, for the respondent, Mary Marchese Amy Alyea, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen Heard and released orally: January 29, 2020 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated April 9, 2019, with reasons released on May 1, 2019. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The respondent was found NCR in December 2008. Until April 2017, she was held under a series of detention orders which included community living at the discretion of the Hospital. In April 2019, the Ontario Review Board, by a 3:2 majority, directed that the respondent should be conditionally discharged. The Hospital appeals and the Crown supports the appeal. [2] Counsel for the Hospital argued that the majority reasons provide virtually no explanation or justification for the conditional discharge disposition. Certainly, those reasons, insofar as they analyze the evidence, are brief, if not cursory. The majority’s reliance on the provisions of the Mental Health Act goes unexplained in those reasons. [3] Given the respondent’s tendency to seriously decompensate very rapidly for a variety of reasons, and her recent history of involuntary admissions prior to the hearings before the Board, it was essential that the reasons of the majority explain why a conditional discharge could, in those circumstances, adequately protect the safety of the public. Unfortunately, the Board’s reasons offer nothing beyond the conclusory comment at para. 30. In our view, absent adequate reasons, the Board’s decision cannot stand. [4] The appeal is allowed and a new hearing is ordered. The hearing should be conducted as soon as reasonably possible and, in any event, by March 6, 2020, one year after the last annual review. In the interim, given what we have been told by counsel for the Hospital, the respondent shall remain subject to the terms of the Board’s order, dated April 9, 2019. “Doherty J.A.” “David Watt J.A.” “C.W. Hourigan J.A.”