|
Medical Law - Inadequacy of Medical Services, Legal Effect of. Joya (Re)
In Joya (Re) (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered an NCR appellant's argument that the lack of psychiatric
services was prejudicial to his ORB disposition.Note: The appellant's case was unsuccessful on this argument, due to the court disagreeing with him that he was so prejudiced on the tribunal's fact-finding (a situation that I would not usually extract as it reflects no useful legal points). However, I'm using the case to open a new related sub-topic as the 'inadequacy of medical services' has become a serious problem, particularly in cases of social benefit entitlement where medical evidence is required (eg. ODSP). The court continues to state:(2) The Charter argument
[18] The appellant argues that his ss. 7, 9, and 15 Charter rights were infringed because he was denied an absolute discharge due to waitlists and a lack of resources that made him unable to obtain acceptance into a non-forensic mental health treatment program. The Board declined to make this order for two reasons.
[19] First, the appellant’s complaint was about the adequacy of psychiatric services if he was given an absolute discharge, but the Board loses its jurisdiction once an absolute discharge is ordered. It was therefore doubtful whether it had jurisdiction to make the order requested.
[20] Second, and in any event, the Board concluded that an absolute discharge was inappropriate not because of the lack of non-forensic care, but because of its conclusion that the appellant continues to present a significant threat to public safety. The Board concluded that the appellant needed to remain under the jurisdiction of the hospital for his illness to be monitored, and we see no error in this conclusion. While there was no certainty that the appellant would be able to successfully access treatment outside of the forensic care he received in the hospital, there was evidence that the hospital would assist the appellant in finding non-forensic care and that he would not be left without treatment. The Charter issue that was raised therefore did not arise.
[21] The Board was therefore entitled to deny the Charter relief that the appellant sought.
|
