Ontario criminal | Mental Illness
ADVISORY REVIEW BOARD
Concept of “disease of the mind” had no application to inquiry under s. 672.54 of Criminal Code
Patient submitted that board had no jurisdiction to make any order under s. 672.54 of Criminal Code because patient did not suffer from “disease of the mind”. Appeal dismissed. Patient misunderstood jurisdiction. Board was statutory body and its jurisdiction over patient came from relevant provisions of Criminal Code. That jurisdiction was not affect by assertions of patient, or even medical evidence to effect that patient did not and never did have disease of mind. Concept of “disease of the mind” was legal one with such determination being made by court in criminal proceeding. Concept had no application to inquiry under s. 672.54 which was concerned with safety of public and mental health of “accused”. There was no merit to Charter arguments.
R. v. Smethurst (Sep. 24, 2015, Ont. C.A., Doherty J.A., Tulloch J.A., and Huscroft J.A., File No. CA C58603) 124 W.C.B. (2d) 476.
Concept of “disease of the mind” had no application to inquiry under s. 672.54 of Criminal Code
Patient submitted that board had no jurisdiction to make any order under s. 672.54 of Criminal Code because patient did not suffer from “disease of the mind”. Appeal dismissed. Patient misunderstood jurisdiction. Board was statutory body and its jurisdiction over patient came from relevant provisions of Criminal Code. That jurisdiction was not affect by assertions of patient, or even medical evidence to effect that patient did not and never did have disease of mind. Concept of “disease of the mind” was legal one with such determination being made by court in criminal proceeding. Concept had no application to inquiry under s. 672.54 which was concerned with safety of public and mental health of “accused”. There was no merit to Charter arguments.
R. v. Smethurst (Sep. 24, 2015, Ont. C.A., Doherty J.A., Tulloch J.A., and Huscroft J.A., File No. CA C58603) 124 W.C.B. (2d) 476.
