|
Criminal - NCR - 'Restriction of Liberty'. Heinekamp (Re)
In Heinekamp (Re) (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal notes a psychiatric hospital's NCR CCC authority to "readmit the appellant if his situation deteriorated" and the resultant 'Restriction of Liberty' hearing that is required:[25] As noted in the Board’s reasons for its January 2023 disposition, the person in charge at the Hospital retained the authority to readmit the appellant if his situation deteriorated. Pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) [SS: I suspect this cite should be to CCC 672.56(2), the provision actually cited is the hearing provision] of the Code, however, the Hospital was required to give notice to the Board of any increase in restrictions on the appellant’s liberty so that an ROL hearing could be held “as soon as practicable”. The purpose of an ROL hearing “is to act as a final liberty safeguard, allowing for a second-look at those hospital decisions that have such serious ramifications for the liberty of the NCR accused, that they should be examined ahead of the next yearly review”: Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, 139 O.R. (3d) 401 at para. 64.
[26] At an ROL hearing, a person whose liberty has been restricted has the right to be represented by counsel, submit evidence, make submissions, and enjoy other procedural protections set out in ss. 672.5 to 672.53 of the Code. These procedural guarantees are undermined if, prior to the hearing, the Hospital, unilaterally and without notice, takes steps that make the person’s reduced liberty a foregone conclusion from a practical perspective.
|
