R. v. Skrela
Appeal allowed because the Review Board failed to apply the required least onerous and least restrictive test to the level of detention and to the conditions, used the inadequate standard of 'appropriate', did not specify the level of detention and improperly permitted unspecified movement between security levels;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C40899
- Parties
- Appellant: Vata Skrela; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Intervener: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 14 April 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated June 2, 2003; Remitted for Re Hearing
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; decision of the Ontario Review Board set aside and remitted for re-hearing
- Legal Topics
- Detention in Hospital, Least Restrictive Alternative, Proportionality, Conditions of Detention, Ontario Review Board, Re Hearing
- 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
Vata Skrela
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition Dated June 2, 2003; Remitted for Re Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the constitutional/proportionality argument succeeds
- 2 Whether the finding of detention in hospital was unreasonable
- 3 Whether the Review Board applied the required least onerous and least restrictive test to both the level of detention and the conditions
Ratio Decidendi
Appeal allowed because the Review Board failed to apply the required least onerous and least restrictive test to the level of detention and to the conditions, used the inadequate standard of 'appropriate', did not specify the level of detention and improperly permitted unspecified movement between security levels; matter remitted for re-hearing despite rejecting the constitutional challenge and upholding that the detention finding was not unreasonable.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; decision of the Ontario Review Board set aside and remitted for re-hearing
Orders
- Appeal allowed and matter remitted to the Ontario Review Board for a re-hearing
- The re-hearing is to be expedited
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Skrela Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-04-14 Docket numbers C40899 Judges Rosenberg, Marc; Borins, Stephen; Feldman, Kathryn N. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040414 DOCKET: C40899 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - VATA SKRELA (Appellant) BEFORE: ROSENBERG, BORINS and FELDMAN JJ.A. COUNSEL: David G. Price for the appellant David Finley for the respondent Janice E. Blackburn For the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health HEARD & ENDORSED: April 13, 2004 On appeal from the disposition of the Honourable H.D. Porter of the Ontario Review Board dated June 2, 2003. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We see no merit to the constitutional argument. In our view, the proportionality issue was dealt with and determined against the appellant in Winko. See in particular IP107ff. [2] We are also satisfied that the finding of detention in hospital was not unreasonable. There was evidence from Dr. Gojer to support the finding and the Board's decision was entitled to deference. [3] However, in light of Tulikorpi and Pinet the Board's decision cannot stand. The Board had to apply the least onerous and least restrictive test to the level of detention and to the conditions. The Board, however, used the standard of "appropriate" with respect to the conditions, did not specify the level of detention and purported to permit the hospital to move the appellant between medium and minimum and back again. [4] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the Board for a re-hearing. We would ask that the re-hearing be expedited.