|
Criminal - NCR - Appeals. McAnuff (Re)
In McAnuff (Re) (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the SOR for an appeal from an ORB ruling:[17] This court will only interfere with a decision of the Board if the decision was unreasonable or if the Board made an error of law: R. v. Owen, 2003 SCC 33, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779, at para. 31. A Board decision is reasonable if its risk assessment and disposition order are supported by reasons that can bear even a “somewhat probing” examination: Owen, at para. 33. The court must evaluate reasonableness by considering the reasons given by the Board and the context in which the decision was made to determine whether an acceptable and defensible outcome has been reached: Wall (Re), 2017 ONCA 713, 417 D.L.R. (4th) 124, at para. 22. . Skeete (Re) [SOR]
In Skeete (Re) (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considers the appellate SOR for ORB decisions:[8] The leading case dealing with the standard of review of ORB decisions is R. v. Owen, 2003 SCC 33. In Owen, the court said that the ORB’s findings are reviewed on a reasonableness standard. If the ORB’s decision falls within a range of reasonable outcomes, it is entitled to deference, absent an error in law or a miscarriage of justice: at para. 31. The test for reasonableness is whether the ORB’s disposition order is supported by reasons that can bear an even “somewhat probing” examination: at para. 33.
[9] The ORB majority relied heavily on the testimony of the appellant’s treating psychiatrist at Ontario Shores, Dr. J. Pytyck, who favoured a transfer to CAMH because it offers a sexual behaviour clinic that is not available at Ontario Shores. According to Dr. Pytyck, many of the appellant’s problems are rooted in his hypersexuality and a pattern of concerning behaviour towards others, particularly those who are more vulnerable. The ORB majority found that Ontario Shores has tried, but failed, to address these issues through therapies and psychoeducation. Accordingly, the ORB majority concluded the “expertise of CAMH’s sexual behaviour clinic, including a fresh analysis, and ready resources, satisfy the Board that would enhance Mr. Skeete’s potential positive trajectory while potentially protecting the public.”
[10] In our view, this analysis and conclusion easily come within the reasonableness framework enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Owen. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
|
