McKinney (Re)
The Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was reasonable because it was supported by the appellant's history of threatening acts, expert evidence of likely relapse, and an actuarial risk assessment; further, a conditional discharge was not available because the Board required...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 645
- Parties
- Appellant: Scott Andrew Ryan McKinney; Respondent: Ministry of the Attorney General; Respondent: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 September 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From the Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated December 2, 2013
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Dangerousness and Continuing Detention, Conditional Discharge, Standard of Review Unreasonableness, Risk Assessment, Supervised Housing
- 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
Scott Andrew Ryan McKinney
Appellant
Ministry of the Attorney General
Respondent
Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From the Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated December 2, 2013
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board's finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the Board erred in failing to grant a conditional discharge
- 3 Whether a requirement that the appellant live in supervised housing precludes a conditional discharge
Ratio Decidendi
The Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was reasonable because it was supported by the appellant's history of threatening acts, expert evidence of likely relapse, and an actuarial risk assessment; further, a conditional discharge was not available because the Board required supervised housing approved by the person in charge, rendering conditional discharge unavailable under R. v. Runnels; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Order confirming the Ontario Review Board disposition dated December 2, 2013
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
McKinney (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-09-19 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 645 Docket numbers C58213 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Rouleau, Paul S.; Hourigan, C. William Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: McKinney (Re), 2014 ONCA 645 DATE: 20140919 DOCKET: C58213 Simmons, Rouleau and Hourigan JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: SCOTT ANDREW RYAN McKINNEY AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Brian Eberdt, for the appellant Matthew Asma, for the respondent Ministry of the Attorney General Julie Zamprogna Balles, for the respondent Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care Heard: September 17, 2014 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 2, 2013. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant contends that the Board’s finding that he continues to be pose a significant threat to the safety of the public was unreasonable. We disagree. [2] The appellant’s history of significant threatening acts, plus the expert evidence of likely relapse if discharged, plus the actuarial risk assessment provided ample evidence to support the Board’s conclusion. [3] As for the appellant’s alternative argument that the Board erred in failing to grant a conditional discharge, a conditional discharge was not available in light of the Board’s finding that if living in the community it was necessary that the appellant live in supervised housing approved by the person in charge: see R. v. Runnels, [2012] O.J. No. 2011 at para. 12. The Board’s finding in this respect was fully supported by the evidence. [4] The appeal is therefore dismissed.