Lamb (Re)
The Board properly found the appellant was a significant threat and the evidence supported that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition; given the appellant's current incapacity to consent to treatment, conditional discharge was not available and the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 169
- Parties
- Appellant: Phillip Lamb; Amicus Curiae: Joseph DiLuca; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario; Intervener: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated April 4, 2013; Heard Feb 28, 2014; Decision Released Mar 3, 2014
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; Ontario Review Board detention order affirmed
- Legal Topics
- Detention Order, Conditional Discharge, Absolute Discharge, Capacity to Consent to Treatment, Least Onerous and Least Restrictive Disposition
- 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
Phillip Lamb
Appellant
Joseph DiLuca
Amicus Curiae
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated April 4, 2013; Heard Feb 28, 2014; Decision Released Mar 3, 2014
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether absolute discharge was available given finding of significant threat to public safety
- 2 Whether conditional discharge was appropriate
- 3 Whether detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition
Ratio Decidendi
The Board properly found the appellant was a significant threat and the evidence supported that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition; given the appellant's current incapacity to consent to treatment, conditional discharge was not available and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; Ontario Review Board detention order affirmed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 4, 2013 (detention order) is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Lamb (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-03-03 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 169 Docket numbers C56891 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Juriansz, Russell G.; Watt, David Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Lamb (Re), 2014 ONCA 169 DATE: 20140303 DOCKET: C56891 Laskin, Juriansz and Watt JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Phillip Lamb AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Phillip Lamb, appearing in person Joseph DiLuca, amicus curiae Mary-Ellen Hurman, for the Attorney General of Ontario Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Heard and released orally: February 28, 2014 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, April 4, 2013. ENDORSEMENT [1] It was common ground before the Board that the appellant was a significant threat to the safety of the public. It follows from the uncontested nature of this finding, which remains the case on appeal, that an absolute discharge was not available in this case. [2] The Board considered whether a conditional discharge was appropriate and concluded that it was not. Their conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was fully supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing. That conclusion was not tainted by legal error or by any misapprehension of the evidence and is plainly reasonable. We observe that, in light of the fresh evidence that the appellant is currently incapable of consenting to treatment, a conditional discharge is not an option available to us today. [3] The appellant’s next annual review is scheduled for March 4, 2014 when it will be open to him to advance once again his case for a conditional discharge. [4] The appeal is dismissed. “John Laskin J.A.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “David Watt J.A.”