Ontario Criminal


Judge might have come to different conclusion had doctor’s report been available

Accused appealed from finding that he was not criminally responsible (NCR) after he pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, assault causing bodily harm, utter death threat and failing to comply with recognizance. Accused relied on report of doctor, prepared shortly after proceedings concluded. In this report, doctor did not support claim of NCR with respect to number of offences. This report was not available to judge at hearing when he found accused NCR. Report was thorough and very helpful in shedding more light on accused’s circumstances. Appeal allowed; new trial ordered on NCR issue only. With her usual fairness, Crown conceded that doctor’s report should be admitted as fresh evidence and that new trial should be ordered, but limited solely to NCR issue. Court accepted this concession as reasonable. Had doctor’s report been available to judge at hearing, he may well have come to different conclusion.

R. v. Alexander (Nov. 27, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., Trotter J., File No. 54/14) 118 W.C.B. (2d) 58.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A report is expected next month that will kickstart a discussion about the size and composition of the Law Society of Ontario’s board and how it functions. Do you think the board is too big?