R v Morrill, 2016 ABQB 638

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Morrill, 2016 ABQB 638 Date: 20161114 Docket: 110182359Q1 Registry: Calgary Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Christopher Ryan Morrill Accused _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice M.C.

Erb _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Christopher Ryan Morrill has been charged with 13 Criminal Code offences arising from a shooting incident involving himself and several members of the RCMP in the early hours of August 19, 2010, near Cremona, Alberta. [ 2 ] The charges are summarized as follows: one count of shooting towards police to avoid arrest; two counts of reckless discharge of a firearm: s. 244.2(1)(A); one count of reckless use of a firearm in the safety of another person: 244.2(1)(B); two counts of uttering a threat of bodily harm or death: 264.1(1)(A); once count of dangerous driving: s. 249(1)(A); one count of evading police when operating a motor vehicle: 249.1(1); two counts of using a firearm while uttering a threat of bodily harm or death:85(1)(c); failing to provide information following a motor vehicle accident:252(1); one count of careless use of a .22 calibre rifle: s. 86(1); and one count of

possession of a weapon dangerous to the public: s. 88(1). [3] Fortunately, no one was seriously injured. The outcome was restricted to damage to police vehicles and residential propertyon the farm where he had been living. [4] After the incident, Mr. Morrill was tracked in the bush by a police service dog and was later treated for injuries to his rightknee inflicted by the dog, acting in accordance with its training. [5] Mr. Morrill seeks a declaration pursuant to

Section 16 of the Code that he was Not Criminally Responsible for his actions byreason of a mental disorder he had at the time of the incident, rendering him incapable of appreciating that his actions were wrong. [6] It is the Crown’s position that Mr. Morrill did not suffer from a mental disorder and if he did have a mental disorder, it didnot render him exempt from legal responsibility. The Crown submits that intoxication accounts for his conduct on August 19, 2010, oralternatively, any mental disorder, was triggered by intoxication making Mr. Morrill ineligible for relief under

section 16. For thosereasons, the Crown asks that the Application be dismissed. [7] In support of their positions, both parties rely on the evidence at the time the offences occurred, the surroundingcircumstances, the evidence of forensic psychiatrists and Mr. Morrill’s mental health and social history. Mr. Morrill testified on his ownbehalf. [8] A preliminary application was brought by the Crown to have an interview between a police investigator and Mr. Morrilladmitted into evidence. The issue was the voluntariness of the statement.

The application was dismissed but the evidence other than theinterview was admitted in these proceedings by agreement of the parties. The Court’s ruling was issued in separate reasons and will notbe referred to in these reasons for judgement. Legal Framework [9]

Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46 provides that: 16

(1) No person is criminally responsible for

an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder thatrendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong; 16

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue ofsubsection (1) until the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities. 16

(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on theparty that raises the issue. [10] Accordingly, Mr. Morrill must establish the legal requirements on a balance of probabilities. The Issues [11] Two issues arise from a review of

section 16: (

i) whether Mr. Morrill had a mental disorder at the time of the offences allegedand (ii) whether the mental disorder caused him an inability to know and appreciate that what he was doing at the time and to know itwas wrong.

Mental disorder [12] What constitutes a mental disorder is well established by the by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Cooper (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 1149: [It] embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding however, self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs, as well as transitory mental states such as hysteria or concussion . . . to support a defence ofinsanity the disease must …be of such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violentact or of knowing that it is wrong.

Appreciation and Knowledge [13] In R v Oommen (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507, at p. 520, Chief Justice McLachlin put the question this way: [it is] whether the accused possessed the capacity present in the ordinary person to know that the act in question was wrong havingregard to the everyday standards of the ordinary person . . . the real question is whether the accused should be exempted from criminalresponsibility because a mental disorder at the time of the act deprived him of the capacity for rational perception and hence rationalchoice about the rightness or wrongness of the act. [14] She also noted that s. 16 “embraces not only the intellectual ability to know right from wrong, but the capacity to apply thatknowledge to the situation at hand.”

Agreed Statement of Facts [ 15 ] Counsel have filed an Agreed Statement of Facts marked as an exhibit in these proceedings, which outlines what happened: At approximately 2:30 am on August 19, 2010, the Didsbury RCMP received a complaint advising that Christopher Morrill, who had been drinking and was reportedly drunk, was threatening to kill his Uncle John Ross and then kill himself. John Ross was residing in a motor home on the same rural property a short distance from the accused's residence.

The accused was in possession of a .22 caliber rifle and had already fired a shot which had struck a pane of glass in the front door of the accused's and Kim's residence while Kim was in the hallway of this residence. Kim had fled from the residence and was parked at an intersection approximately one and one quarter miles from the residence. The police were informed that the accused had decided he'd had enough of being mistreated by his uncle and he was going to end it by killing his uncle and then himself.

While the accused was on the phone speaking initially with his girlfriend Kim Lawrence and then speaking with Cst. Morrison (a member of the Didsbury detachment of the RCMP), Cons. Bensmiller and Cst. Dawley (members from the Sundre detachment of the RCMP) decided to drive closer to the residence to set up a perimeter and get a visual on the property. The police understood that Uncle John Ross was on the property and his condition and safety were not known. Cst. Morrison was asking the accused to come outside without any weapons and with his hands in the air, but the accused said he would not do that.

The accused was told that if he didn't come out the police dog and Emergency Response Team would have to attend and there would likely be damage to the house. He was asked again to come out of the house when the police officers attend and the accused said he would not come out cooperatively. Cst. Morrison asked if he would hurt the police officers. He said "no, just my uncle". At about this time the phone went scratchy and the connection was lost. The accused had been speaking to Cst. Morrison on a cordless phone as he drove away from his residence. As the police vehicles driven by Cst. Bensmiller and Cst.

Dawley approached the rural property, a truck was noted exiting from property that fit the location that had been described to the members. Cst. Bensmiller, in the lead police cruiser, activated his emergency lights to stop the truck to see who was driving. Cst. Dawley also activated his emergency lights. As the truck exited the property and turned South towards Cst. Bensmiller, he observed the vehicle was heading straight towards him. Cst. Bensmiller pulled to the side of the road but the truck kept coming directly at him. At the last moment Cst.

Bensmiller swerved for the ditch but the oncoming truck struck his police cruiser on the driver's side rear passenger door with enough force to spin his police cruiser around. Cst. Dawley had pulled over and was stopped. The accused accelerated towards Cst. Dawley's police cruiser, which still had its emergency lights activated, and rammed the driver's side of Cst. Dawley's police cruiser, smashing out the driver's window, completely removing the driver's side mirror, and peeling back the sheet metal of the driver's door, in the process blowing glass and debris all over Cst.

Dawley and the interior of his police cruiser. Cst. Dawley suffered scrapes to his left shin, bruising to both knees, a sore right ankle, and numerous small cuts from the glass. Cst. Bensmiller immediately pursued the accused with lights and siren activated but the accused did not pull over and stop. Cst. Dawley also joined the pursuit. The accused turned West onto Township Road 31.2, which ends approximately 4 kilometers to the West by turning North where it becomes Range Road 5.2.

To the South there is an access to a location where 4 X 4 vehicles frequently cross the river to access well used trails through the bush. Cst. Bensmiller did not notice any swerving or failure to negotiate curves or turns as the accused drove from the collision scene to this location. A sign was up saying the river crossing was closed, but the accused tried to get across. He didn't make it across and Cst. Bensmiller was positioning his police cruiser to shine his lights on the accused's vehicle when the accused fired 2 shots.

The rifle later seized from the accused was a single shot .22 caliber rifle, and thus each round had to be individually inserted into the chamber. Cst. Bensmiller repositioned his police cruiser for cover and by radio advised the other members of the shots. Cst. Bensmiller heard a few more shots, clearly hearing the bullets whistle by his head and also hearing bullets ricochet off the road/rocks. These shots were separated by approximately 15 - 30 seconds each. Cst. Dawley heard what sounded like two bullets hitting Cst. Bensmiller's police cruiser and also a bullet zip overhead. Cst.

Boles, a member of the RCMP stationed at Olds, had been beside Cst. Morrison as she was speaking on the phone with the accused. When he heard the radio transmission that Cst. Bensmiller had been rammed, he immediately jumped back into his police cruiser and with emergency lights activated traveled at high speed to get to Cst. Bensmiller's position to assist. Thus he ended up being the 3rd police vehicle in the pursuit and had pulled in immediately behind Cst. Dawley's police cruiser which was behind Cst. Bensmiller's police cruiser.

Cst. Boles grabbed his shotgun, ran up to Cst. Bensmiller who was taking cover on the driver's side of his police cruiser, and Cst. Boles took a position by the driver's side rear tire. From this position he heard 2 bullets whiz right over the top of the police cruiser. He then heard a bullet hit near the rear passenger tire and immediately afterwards saw a dust cloud at that spot. At this point Cst. Bensmiller utilized the police cruiser's loud hailer and stated “Police. Put the gun down. Come out with your hands up”.

Immediately after issuing that command, the accused fired not just one but 2 bullets in the direction of the police officers. The alley light on the passenger side of Cst. Bensmiller's police cruiser was illuminated, and was the only light in the area, clearly marking the location of the police cruiser. Csts. Bensmiller, Dawley, and Boles were directed to fall back leaving the 2 closest police cruisers with their lights on to cover their movements so they could get to Cst. Boles' and Cst. Williams' police cruisers. They then retreated to a location about 1 km away to set up a perimeter.

After they were at this perimeter location they heard 3 more shots fired from the vicinity of the accused's truck. The police evacuated occupants from nearby residences and maintained roadblocks and perimeter locations until ERT and the police service dog could enter and apprehend the accused. Eventually, about 5 hours later, the accused was tracked by a police service dog to where the accused was seated with his back against a tree, totally covered by a grey blanket with a rifle by his right hip, which was also hidden under the blanket. The accused was arrested after a brief struggle.

The rifle in the accused's possession was a .22 single shot with a bullet in the chamber ready to be fired. It was this gun that the accused had been firing from the passenger side of his truck after it got stuck. The accused had crossed the river four times from the location where his truck had become stuck to the location where he was arrested. When apprehended the accused had in his possession a Ziploc bag with 19 more .22 caliber rounds in it. Also in his possession was a Ziploc bag containing cigarettes.

Four expended casings and one live round were seized from near the passenger side front tire, most in the water, one on the shore. Another casing had been seen by one of the police officers but was washed away by the time the casings were seized. The four expended casings had been fired from the rifle seized from the accused. The distance from the accused's vehicle to the police cruiser the officers were hiding behind was approximately 56 metres. [ 16 ] The Agreed Statement of Facts follows the events up to Mr. Morrill’s apprehension by police and his behaviour and treatment throughout that period of time.

What occurred thereafter is derived from the testimony of several witnesses including police, medical and institutional personnel and Mr. Morrill himself. Three forensic psychiatrists also testified. Post Apprehension Evidence Constable Ryan Dawiskiba [ 17 ] Constable Dawiskiba, a member of the RCMP Emergency Response Team was present when the police service dog tracked Mr. Morrill to a location under a tree in the bush where he was found sleeping under a blanket.

After being arrested and cautioned in the usual manner, his hands were restrained behind his back and he was walked out of the bush over at least a 20 to 30 minute period. [ 18 ] The constable stated that he did not recall noting any signs of alcohol on Mr. Morrill’s person and had no reason to raise an enquiry about his sobriety. If he had, he would have made a note of it. He stated that Mr. Morrill walked out of the bush on his own without difficulty. He said that Mr. Morrill was very calm, did not utter a single word during the walk and did not complain about his leg that had been bitten by the service dog.

Constable Terrence Willard [ 19 ] Constable Willard was also present at the apprehension site. He noted six or seven puncture dog bites on Mr. Morrill’s right leg and could see that the wounds were bleeding after officers removed Mr. Morrill’s trousers for security reasons. When Mr. Morrill was told that he was charged with at least three counts of attempted murder and dangerous use of a firearm, he remained silent. [ 20 ] Constable Willard said that Mr. Morrill was cooperative at all times but was quiet and did not show any emotion. [ 21 ] At 9:04 a.m., Constable Willard took Mr.

Morrill to the hospital at Didsbury. During the drive there he did not speak. At the hospital, Constable Willard adjusted the handcuffs after Mr. Morrill appeared in discomfort with the cuffs behind his back and lying on a hospital bed. [ 22 ] Constable Willard read him his rights and Mr. Morrill provided one word responses to questions. No other verbal exchanges took place at the detachment. At 10:33 a.m. he answered yes when asked if he wanted to speak to a lawyer and was given the opportunity. [ 23 ] Constable Willard took Mr.

Morrill back to the hospital after a jail guard informed him at 1:43 p.m. that the dog bite wounds were bleeding. At the hospital, the wounds were sutured.

Dr. Ashif Jaffer [ 24 ] Dr. Jaffer was the attending physician at the Didsbury Hospital when Mr. Morrill was brought in by police. He treated him at 9:51 a.m. Dr. Jaffer stated that there were seven puncture wounds roughly a half centimetre each, gaping and consistent with dog bites. Mr. Morrill’s temperature, pulse respiration rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation and blood were normal and there were no signs of any distress. He said distress signs would include increased heart rate and blood pressure. Mr.

Morrill also had a normal central nervous system response (CNS) reading determined by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) which determines a patient’s alertness and awareness of pain, sensation, surroundings. Mr. Morrill’s neurological functioning score was normal. Mr. Morrill did not complain of pain in his leg. [ 25 ] Dr. Jaffer said the nurse gave Mr. Morrill a routine tetanus shot, cleaned the wounds and gave him an antibiotic injection. [ 26 ] Dr. Jaffer did not record any indicia of a mental health issue. Mr. Morrill’s injury was bandaged and taped up. He was discharged at 10:30 a.m. Dr.

Jaffer did not record any indication of intoxication. He deemed Mr. Morrill fit to return to the police cells. Mr. Morrill’s demeanour did not change throughout. [ 27 ] Dr. Jaffer also treated Mr. Morrill when he was escorted back to the hospital at 1:49 p.m. He said the wounds were bleeding profusely at that time and the bandage was completely saturated with blood. Dr. Jaffer used a local anaesthetic and closed the leg wounds with five sutures. Dr. Jaffer confirmed that Mr. Morrill did not complain about pain and did not ask for pain medications. Mr.

Morrill was discharged at 2:35 p.m. and taken back to the detachment cells. [ 28 ] In cross examination, Dr. Jaffer stated that he made no notes about Mr. Morrill’s mental health status and appears to have made no inquiry. [ 29 ] Dr. Jaffer stated that the normal human body responds to trauma by rapid heart rate, unless they are elderly or have other medical conditions. It was Dr. Jaffer’s understanding that Mr. Morrill was using Ventolin for asthma flare-ups at that time and no other medications. Dr.

Jaffer stated that a normal healthy person responding to trauma would have a fast heart and pulse rate and either low or very high blood pressure and fast respiration rate. [ 30 ] During the second trip to the hospital, Mr. Morrill’s vitals were all normal despite bleeding profusely which would be expected to have affected his vitals. He speculated that Mr. Morrill may not have lost sufficient blood to affect his functioning. [ 31 ] Dr.

Jaffer said that a person presenting with severe trauma but still having normal vitals would be “a very rare situation”. [ 32 ] There was no indication whether what was described as Mr. Morrill’s profuse bleeding could be characterized as severe trauma. Constable Shane Williams [ 33 ] Cst. Williams as the primary investigator in Mr. Morrill’s case met him for the first time at 8:40 p.m. about 12 hours after he was apprehended in the bush. At that time, he was given the standard processing, provided brief responses when required and asked no questions. Mr.

Morrill’s silence was also confirmed by Jason Carr DeCoste who gave Mr. Morrill the standard secondary caution. Alberta Klaus and Brenda Prohl [ 34 ] Ms. Klaus and Ms. Prohl were jail guards at the Didsbury RCMP detachment when Mr. Morrill was ensconced there. They checked him routinely every 10 to 15 minutes. Ms. Klaus noted at 1:32 pm that Mr. Morrill had sat up after lying down most of the time with his face to the wall. He was bleeding heavily at his wound site. She alerted Constable Willard who took him back to the hospital. She recalled that there was a lot of blood because she had to clean up the cell. Ms.

Prohl stated that Mr. Morrill spent his time during her watch on his bunk with his face to the wall. Dr. Liya Xie [ 35 ] Dr. Xie is a psychiatrist employed by Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre (SAFPC). She was asked to test Mr. Morrill’s fitness to stand trial, namely discovering whether he was capable of understanding court proceedings and instructing legal counsel. Mr. Morrill was admitted to the forensic unit on September 17, 2010. Dr. Xie reviewed Mr. Morrill’s history and then met with him on September 20. She prescribed anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medications that same day. Dr.

Xie met with Mr. Morrill on three occasions for about an hour each time. [ 36 ] Dr. Xie said that Mr. Morrill was oriented, calm and cooperative. He was not agitated but appeared depressed, low energy, and flat emotionally. She said that he appeared to be paranoid about his uncle and other stress points in his life. He reported voices in his head. She wrote “auditory hallucinations” in her notes. When asked about the charges he was facing, Mr. Morrill admitted to having suicidal thoughts. When asked about what had taken place, Mr. Morrill expressed minimal memory.

She said he recalled having been drinking. [ 37 ] When Dr. Xie saw Mr. Morrill on October 13, she noted that he had been taking the medications she prescribed. He admitted to no suicidal or homicidal intentions at the time of the interview. He was sleeping through the day and had trouble sleeping at night. [ 38 ] Her next contact was on October 18. In reference to the charges, Dr. Xie stated that Mr. Morrill told her that he believed he was not guilty because “that was not him”. Mr. Morrill was discharged from the forensic unit on October 25. She deemed him fit to stand trial.

In her report, she stated her understanding that Mr. Morrill had been “acutely intoxicated” at the time of the incident,

[ 39 ] In cross examination, Dr. Xie said the purpose of her contact with Mr. Morrill was solely for the fitness assessment. She stated that in late October, the antidepressant drugs were increased and the antipsychotic drugs were reduced. [ 40 ] Dr. Xie stated that Mr. Morrill was “medicated the entire time” he was at the forensic unit. She stated that she had prescribed the anti-psychotic drug, Olanzapine, because she saw in his medical history that he had taken it previously and it had been effective. This medical history included a report by Dr. Kenneth Hashman written in 2000. She said that Dr.

Hashman had diagnosed Mr. Morrill with a “severe mental disorder of a psychotic kind” with impaired contact with reality, and alcohol/substance abuse. Teresa Lynn McCallum [ 41 ] Testifying in rebuttal, Ms. McCallum, was a psychiatric nurse employed by SAFPC when Mr. Morrill was there. She completed a nursing assessment. She supervised other nurses and nursing students also dealing with Mr. Morrill on the unit. [ 42 ] The general input from these notes is that Mr. Morrill slept a great deal of the time, and appears to have been awake in later afternoons and early evening.

He had to be coaxed out of his room particularly in the initial days on the unit. He told staff that he wakes up startled, has nightmares, has difficulty staying asleep at night, hears his uncle’s voice in his head yelling at him and continually thinks about the hurtful things his uncle said and did. He repeatedly declined breakfast. [ 43 ] Ms. MacCallum said that Mr. Morrill told her he had been drinking all day before the incident. He said he could not believe that he would do anything against the police “it’s just not me”.

He described the RCMP as “good guys” and the thought of having done something made him feel sick. [ 44 ] Mr. Morrill told another nurse on Sept. 29: “I’ve been apparently accused by the police”. The staff notation was that he seemed to believe he did nothing wrong. Mr. Morrill was also described as having had blunted effect, being close to tears, having slowed speech movements, little motivation and appeared to be depressed. [ 45 ] Notes from early October indicate that he was hearing the voices less frequently. Mr. Morrill had been on medications since September 20. Christopher Ryan Morrill [ 46 ] Mr.

Morrill disclosed that he is presently 37 years of age and resides in Winfield, Alberta on his parents’ farm. He has resided there since 2011. He has a grade 10 education with some post-secondary upgrading and gas-fitting and safety courses. [ 47 ] On August 19, 2010, Mr. Morrill was residing on his grandparents’ farm near Sundre having moved there about eight years previously to assist his them with farm chores. He said the handling of 30 head of horses had become too much for his elderly grandfather to manage. During breakup that spring, he had also worked part time for a gas well testing company. [ 48 ] Mr.

Morrill stated that he recalls being arrested after waking up in the bush under a tree with a dog gripping his right lower leg. [ 49 ] He was taken to the Didsbury detachment and later to the Remand Centre in Calgary. [ 50 ] In September, he was moved from the Remand Centre to the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatric Centre (SAFPC) where he remained for about 30 days and then returned to the Remand Centre. While at the Remand Centre, he was taking Zyprexa. He was released from custody in January 2011 under conditions, one of which was to continue treatment with a psychiatrist. He did so with Dr. Curtis Woods.

He has had many sessions with Dr. Woods since the spring of 2011. [ 51 ] Since leaving SAFPC, Mr. Morrill he has been on the medications Zyprexa, Remeron, and Abilify, an anti-psychotic medication. After his release, Mr. Morrill said he continued to take the medications that were provided by Dr. Woods. More recently he has had pharmaceutical insurance coverage. He said he takes his medications every evening. [ 52 ] Mr. Morrill recounted his history with Mental Health Services in 2000 and 2005.

He stated that after a mental health episode in Lethbridge in 2000, he was transferred to the Peter Lougheed Hospital in Calgary where he remained for up to 40 days. He said he thought at the time, that he was doing work for the Lord and had been hearing voices and thought he was on a mission. He did not recall why he was in Lethbridge, but remembers being down by the river and thought he was on an Indian burial ground and felt confused. [ 53 ] While at the Lougheed Hospital, he saw Dr. Kenneth Hashman, a forensic psychiatrist who diagnosed him with a schizoid disorder. He was started on Zyprexa which Mr.

Morrill believed was to control the voices in his head and thoughts he was having. [ 54 ] He said he continued on the medication for two years after he left the Peter Lougheed Hospital but stopped in 2002 because he could no longer afford the medication. The cost was $20 per pill. He said he saw a family physician a few times at Grand Prairie Mental Health Services. [ 55 ] Mr. Morrill said that in 2005, he said he had another break down in downtown Grande Prairie. He said he had heard voices in his head and on the radio, primarily people yelling at him.

The voices stated that he was “worthless, should hurt himself, and he got angry and had confusing thoughts”. He was seeing entities and voices in the trees and he got “really paranoid”, sometimes barricading himself in his room. He said that he admitted himself to the hospital in Grand Prairie after his mother suggest that he get some help. He remained there for treatment for mental health issues for about a week. He said he feels embarrassed for his family talking about these things. [ 56 ] Mr. Morrill stated that at the time of the offences in August 2010, he was not taking any medication.

He had been laid off from work over a year and was struggling to pay bills.

[ 57 ] Around the time of the offences: “I was feeling really paranoid. I was starting to hear my name on the radio, voices of my uncle in my head yelling at me. I remember trying to drive and I’d see people’s eyes looking at me, that they could hear my thoughts. The paranoia was quite bad”. [ 58 ] He said during the days leading up to the incident he was hearing voices in the trees. “I’d get really paranoid. I’d peek through the curtains or I’d barricade myself in the bedroom, hearing people moving around, trying to peek in the window.” [ 59 ] “It seemed very real at the time”. Mr.

Morrill stated that he continues to feel paranoid sometimes at night. “If I have to look for the dog ... just an eerie thing in the back of my mind, then I check myself.” [ 60 ] Mr. Morrill said that since he has been under the care of Dr. Woods, he has not had many of those feelings. He stated that Dr. Woods has helped him bring him into balance and he has been taking his medications. [ 61 ] He stated that on the day of the shooting incident he had spent the morning fishing in the river with his dog. He said it was peaceful there and it was a place to calm down. It was his special spot.

He said that same day his Uncle, his mother’s brother, had arrived at the farm. He said that after his grandfather passed away in 2009, his relationship with his Uncle had deteriorated. The uncle was at the farm more frequently. He would barge into the house with a crowbar in an aggressive way. He would yell at his common law partner and frighten her. The uncle would sit outside the trailer in his truck and “lay on the horn.” [ 62 ] He said that he had been close to his grandmother who had passed away about two weeks prior to the shooting incident.

He said his uncle did not tell him right away and he found out from a message on his answering machine. The uncle did not include him in the arrangements and did not acknowledge that Mr. Morrill was her grandson. His uncle told him his grandmother did not love him; something that upset him greatly. [ 63 ] Mr. Morrill said that when his uncle arrived at the farm, he went down to the river with his dog. He recalled seeing the neighbours’ dog trying to mate with his female dog that was in heat. He took the dog back to the neighbour. [ 64 ] Sometime after dark, he came home and his girlfriend was home from work.

He saw that the neighbours’ dog was back. He had the eerie feeling something was in the trees ...”like an entity”. He said it all seems like a dream now and it was hard to recall everything. “I would feel that they’re in the trees or going to grab you ... it seems really silly now.” [ 65 ] He took a gun that his grandfather had kept around to keep the coyotes away from the horses and fired it in the air to scare off the dog. But the shot went through the glass in the front door of the house and scared his girlfriend. [ 66 ] He said he remembers trying to phone his mother.

Then he remembers his girlfriend being on the phone: telling him that she was worried about him and that he should go to the hospital.” [ 67 ] He said an officer suddenly got on the phone and started yelling that they could do this the easy way or the hard way. He said he jumped in his truck and drove back to the river. He said he does not know why he went back there. It was “really dark” at the creek crossing. He said he remembers seeing lights it the background. He said he felt really scared and floored the truck to get across the creek.

He said the truck went off the path, “from what I understand now and I got stuck”. [ 68 ] He said he could hear voices and he fired shots up into the air, and he just kept running through the trees. [ 69 ] He said at first he felt overwhelmed, the voices, the whole “occurrence" and he wanted to shoot himself. He said he knelt down by his truck and tried but ended up firing shots over the hood of the truck towards whatever was in the trees and then started running. He recalled waking up with someone’s foot on his face and a dog attached to his right knee. [ 70 ] Mr.

Morrill said that his prior relationship with the RCMP had been good and that he and his girlfriend had volunteered at the Sundre rodeo and had positive interactions with them a ‘fair bit’. [ 71 ] He said he recalled being taken to the Didsbury Hospital for treatment for the dog bites and then later in the day, he was taken back because the guard told him that he was getting blood everywhere. He said he did not talk to anyone about hearing voices while at the SAFPC because it was embarrassing. [ 72 ] He said that his lawyer had told him about a possible NCR defence. He said Dr.

Xie told him he was not eligible because he had been intoxicated. He said he did not recall talking to anyone about the shadowy figures and hearing voices until the summer of 2011 when he opened up to Dr. Woods. [ 73 ] He said that on August 19, 2010 he did not believe he was shooting at RCMP officers. He said he couldn’t make sense out of what he has been told happened. [ 74 ] In cross examination, he stated that his girlfriend at the time was working days mostly 9 to 5 and left for work at 7 or 8 a.m.

His day would start around that same time doing chores, mainly looking after the horses. [ 75 ] He had been with his girlfriend about six years and during that time, he was not taking medications. He said while he had long periods of time doing well, he also had his struggles. [ 76 ] He said in August that year, his routine was to drink on weekends, mostly a bottle of wine or wine coolers.

He said he might have had two bottles of wine the day before the incident and that he had been drinking a fair amount that summer. [ 77 ] Earlier when his uncle arrived at the farm, he went to the river then went to Water Valley where he had some drinks at the bar there. He agreed that he had felt the effects of the alcohol at that time. [ 78 ] He admitted smoking marihuana daily for some time and on the day prior to the incident. He said he would go to the bar when

he could afford it. At that time, he was not employed off the farm. [79] In re-direct, he clarified his paranoid feelings. He said he remembers speaking on his cell to his girlfriend. She was trying toget him to come home. He recalled speaking with a police officer who told him they could do this the “easy way or the hard way”. Heinterpreted this to mean flash hand grenades. He said he had an eerie feeling of people creeping around. He thought maybe the policewere shadow people. He said: “I was really scared. I don’t think I was thinking. I just had to get away”.

Expert Evidence [80] Expert evidence is permissible in cases in which the evidence would assist the court because it is relevant, necessary to assistthe trier of fact, not otherwise excluded and provided by a properly qualified expert: White Burgess Langill Inman v Abbott andHaliburton C., 2015, SCC 23; R v Mohan, [1994] 2 SCR at para 17. [81] In White Burgess the admissibility of expert evidence was canvassed in a comprehensive way setting out the thresholdrequirements for proposed expert opinion evidence. The first four requirements are adopted from R v Abbey 2009 ONCA 624: (

i) Relevance; (ii) necessity in assisting the trier of face; (iii) absence of an exclusionary rule; and (iv) properly qualified experts. and White Burgess adds: (

v) Reliability of any underlying science; (vi) fair, objective and non-partisan evidence: namely independent judgement, uninfluenced by whomever has retained the expert; (vii) lack of interest in the outcome of the litigation. [82] The White Burgess additions may be seen as a neutrality principle. In 1159465 Alberta Ltd., v Adwood Manufacturing Ltd., [2010 ABQB 133 at para 2.13, aff’d 2011 ABCA 259 (referred to in R v Lindsay, 2016 ABQB 251).

In Lindsay, Germaine J., describedthe role of an expert as “less a witness for the party than a witness for the court.” [83] In Lindsay, the Court, drawing from a case in civil litigation, enumerated the duties of the Court a bit differently; threereferences are applicable in this case: (

i) An expert should provide independent assistance to the court and the parties by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation tomatters within the expert’s expertise.

The expert witness should never assume the role of an advocate. (ii) The expert evidence should be and be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by theexigencies of the litigation; and (iii) An expert should be ready to reconsider the opinion given and if appropriate to change the opinion upon receipt of newinformation or upon consideration of the opinion of other experts. [84] There should be no dispute that expert evidence is necessary and relevant in this case.

The evidence is directed at the complexissue of mental disorder in a case in which the court is required to determine whether an accused had a mental disorder at the time of theoffences and if so, whether it prevented him from appreciating the nature of the conduct and knowing that it was wrong. [85] Three experts testified in these proceedings: Dr. Curtis Woods, Dr. Santoch Rai and Dr. Oluyemisi Ajeh. [86] The Crown takes issue with the expert evidence of Dr. Woods on the basis that he provided treatment for Mr.

Morrill at theForensic Assessment and Community Services (FACS) in Edmonton and thereafter for an extended period. He submits that Dr. Woods’opinion is not objective and absent of bias. [87] Dr. Rai provided a second opinion in Mr. Morrill’s case at the request of Dr. Woods. [88] The Crown called Dr. Ayeh as an expert also in forensic psychiatry in rebuttal to the opinions given by Dr. Woods and Dr.Rai.

The defence takes issue with her opinion, stating that the value of it is weakened by inexperience and because of her adherence toflawed facts. [89] The evidence of the psychiatrists will be reviewed in the order they testified in these proceedings following a brief review ofthe use of hearsay by expert witnesses. [90] In R v Abbey (SCC), [1982] 68 CCC (2d) 394, The Supreme Court set out the general approach toinadmissibility of hearsay in psychiatric opinions, for the truth of its content.

In R v Kirkby (1985), (ON CA), 21 CCC(3s) 31, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal denied) the court confirmed that the evidence of a statement made to awitness is not hearsay but original evidence when the witness is asked to recount another person’s words for a purpose other than thetruth of what was said. In R v Lavallee (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, the Supreme Court held that not every fact relied onby an expert must be proven because that would raise the burden too high. The issue becomes a matter of what weight a trial judge will

give such evidence where the balance of the opinion passed scrutiny on admissibility. [ 91 ] In these proceedings, for example, the experts relied on the treatment and reports of other medical practitioners including forensic psychiatrists as the historical context when arriving at their own opinions for their expert reports.

This is acceptable. [ 92 ] In addition, there was reliance to some extent on what was said in the 911 call which led police to act on what was taking place in the context of someone “reportedly drunk”. [ 93 ] That is not evidence of the truth unless the person who originally made the observation testified that was the case. Otherwise, the only purpose is part of the narrative about why the police attended at the farm and became involved. [ 94 ] Further, when Dr. Ayeh stated in Court that a third party forensic psychiatrist agreed with her opinion, is not the kind of hearsay that is permissible.

The third party did not testify and did not provide a written report to the Court and is therefore not admissible. Dr. Curtis Woods [ 95 ] Dr. Woods was the first forensic psychiatrist to testify in these proceedings and his evidence was led by the Defence. [ 96 ] Dr. Woods is the Forensic Medical Director of the Forensic Assessment & Community Services (FACS) in Edmonton and is academically highly qualified and has a long record of experience in forensic psychiatry. This Court qualified him to give forensic psychiatric opinion evidence on criminal responsibility. [ 97 ] Dr. Woods has been involved with Mr.

Morrill’s case in two ways: as a treating psychiatrist at FACS in Edmonton when Mr. Morrill was admitted there and later, as an expert in forensic psychiatry asked to complete an assessment for the purposes of this application. [ 98 ] Dr. Woods, stated that he has based his opinion his own “clinical evaluation and longitudinal observation” of Mr. Morrill after reviewing the collateral information provided including Mr. Morrill’s documented mental health history. He also met with Mr.

Morrill and reviewed his admission that he has had paranoid thoughts and suspiciousness since the summer of 1999. [ 99 ] Included in his history are Mr. Morrill’s formal encounters with the mental health system as follows: (

i) In 2000 Mr. Morrill was assessed for fitness to stand trial by Dr. Hashman a forensic psychiatrist at the Peter Lougheed Hospital during Mr. Morrill’s psychiatric hospitalization from September 2 to October 5., 2000. Dr. Hashman diagnosed Mr. Morrill with a severe mental disorder of a psychotic kind (impaired contact with reality) and poly substance abuse; He noted Mr. Morrill’s stated belief that he was getting messages from the television and radio, others could read his mind and he was hearing evil voices stating they were going to kill him. He appeared to be tormented by his symptoms. (ii) In 2002, Dr.

Fred Brown, a general psychiatrist, treated Mr. Morrill while hospitalized at the Peace Country Health in Grand Prairie from June 21 – June 28. Among other things, Dr. Brown noted that Mr. Morrill was having trouble sleeping and was agitated and hearing people making threats against him. Dr. Brown opined that Mr. Morrill had a mixture of bipolar and schizophrenic features and probably schizoaffective disorder. He prescribed Zyprexa 10 mg in the evening. (iii) In 2005, Dr. Thomas MacKay, a forensic psychiatrist assessed Mr.

Morrill at FAOS in Calgary June and diagnosed polysubstance abuse, (namely alcohol and cannabis) in early remission, schizophreniform disorder and probable concussion. He prescribed Zyprexa 10 mg in the evening. At that time, Mr. Morrill was reporting increased threats and abusive and aggressive behaviour from his Uncle John. [ 100 ] In 2010, Mr. Morrill was assessed for fitness to stand trial by Dr. Liya Xie, a forensic psychiatrist who testified in these proceedings. She placed Mr. Morrill on antipsychotic and antidepressant medications when she first met him at SAFPC. Dr. Woods also noted that in Dr.

Xie’s report, that she had concluded that because of “acute intoxication” Mr. Morrill was exempt from an NCR defence. [ 101 ] Dr. Woods confirmed the original diagnosis of Dr. Hashman followed by others that Mr. Morrill has schizoaffective disorder. He also identified psychiatrists a wide range of behaviours Mr. Morrill engaged in which support the diagnoses. [ 102 ] He said that schizoaffective disorder: may occur in a variety of temporal patterns.

A typical pattern appears in circumstances in which an individual may have pronounced auditory hallucinations and persecutory delusions for two months before the onset of a prominent major depressive episode. The psychotic symptoms and the full major depressive episode are then present for about three months. Then, the individual recovers completely from a major depressive episode but the psychotic symptoms persist for another month before they too disappear. [ 103 ] Dr. Woods said that during this period of illness, Mr. Morrill’s symptoms concurrently met criteria for a major depressive episode of schizophrenia.

He said that during this same period of illness, auditory hallucinations and delusions were present both before and after the depressive phase. [ 104 ] Dr. Woods stated that it is probable that at the time of the offences, Mr. Morrill was severely depressed, acutely suicidal, homicidal and floridly psychotic. He further stated his opinion that: “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Mr.

Morrill’s psychiatric infirmity (and conspicuous destabilization of it) was a substantive overriding factor in terms of contributing to the germane and cited criminal misconduct, and rendered him incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his act (inclusive of considering moral wrongfulness and the real-time apprehension and rational application of same)”. [ 105 ] During cross examination, Dr. Woods explained his reference to “floridly psychotic” this way:

If a brain has been that unwell, it can He shut right down. It’s a defensive mechanism... when the police arrived, Mr. Morrill didn’t really know what their intentions were, but that was also in the context of him being unwell and psychotic. So, his

interpretation of “the easy way or the hard way” was kind of like a volcanic eruption.” Dr. Woods said that that Mr. Morrill was frightened because he is psychotic. He’s got delusions and they include persecutory delusions ...the police appearing imposing and menacing to someone who is unwell can lead to very quick and immediate misperceptions and quite dramatic behaviour such as what occurred on August 19. [ 106 ] In his report, Dr. Woods addressed the prospect of Mr. Morrill being possibly intoxicated at the time of the shooting incident on August 19, 2010. He stated that while there is evidence that Mr.

Morrill may have use marihuana and consumed two bottles of wine at some point prior to the incidents, there is no reliable indication that he was “acutely intoxicated” or that his level of intoxication was severe. He stated that while smoking a marihuana a day and drinking one or two bottles of wine is not a small amount of alcohol, it is not a massive amount either. [ 107 ] It was Dr. Woods’ opinion that if Mr. Morrill had been acutely intoxicated (alcohol), its effect would have been largely “a perpetuating as opposed to a precipitating variable.” [ 108 ] Dr.

Woods stated that the “internal case” test is that when someone without mental illness drinks to excess, the likelihood of engaging in this gravity of behaviour is extraordinarily low. He said this suggests that there is an internal cause not just an external one to the person.” [ 109 ] As indicated, the Crown has taken the position that Dr. Woods’ opinion is biased and should be disregarded by the Court. The Crown submits that Dr. Woods was too close to his subject as both an assessing forensic psychiatrist and a treating psychiatrist having provided treatment during many sessions as well as medications that Mr.

Morrill could not afford at the time. [ 110 ] In response, Dr. Woods stated that he had made efforts to maintain a professional distance. However, to diminish this becoming an issue, he asked Dr. Santoch Rai to provide a second opinion in Mr. Morrill’s case. [ 111 ] I find that Dr. Woods was mindful of the double role he had regarding Mr. Morrill’s circumstances and that he took appropriate and prudent steps to ensure his assessment was objective including acquiring a second opinion. I see no evidence of bias in Dr. Woods approach. Dr. Santoch Rai [ 112 ] Dr.

Rai is also an academically highly qualified and experienced forensic psychiatrist with FACS in Edmonton. This Court qualified him to give forensic psychiatric opinion evidence in these proceedings. [ 113 ] Dr. Rai met with Mr. Morrill three times: November 2011, and in January and February 2012. During cross examination, Dr. Rai stated that his reason for acquiring information from Mr.

Morrill was to: see what was going on in his mind; to look at what constituted a report of phenomenology or symptoms within a reasonable degree of certainty; and to ensure that what was reported was genuine and not that a fabrication. Dr. Rai said he satisfied himself that the reporting was genuine. [ 114 ] Mr. Morrill in the interviews recounted, as he had in prior assessments, what took place leading up to the incident with the police. He told Dr.

Rai about hearing his name on the radio, his powers over electronics and streetlights, his uncle’s voice in his head and believing other people were reading his thoughts. [ 115 ] Dr. Rai described Mr. Morrill as having “quite florid symptoms of psychosis”. [ 116 ] Mr. Morrill acknowledged drinking that evening and having had marihuana sometime that day or evening. He said he had about two bottles of wine but was sober enough to drive and did drive home. When Mr.

Morrill was asked about versions of what took place provided to others, he could not remember what he had said. [ 117 ] During the February 12 session, Mr. Morrill told Dr. Rai about being watched by people in the woods. He described these people as shadowy. When he was shooting at the lights during the incident, he thought he was fighting for his life against these entities but feeling that he wanted to kill himself at the same time. [ 118 ] Mr. Morrill stated that there was long-standing acrimonious relationship between himself and his uncle.

That night, he had shot a firearm in the direction of the trailer where his uncle was staying. He talked about his uncle’s abusive behaviour including threats to make him “disappear in the swamp” and his fear of being tortured. He stated that he thought he was a test subject for a government information collection project. Mr. Morrill stated that his symptoms had subsided since being on medication. [ 119 ] Dr. Rai noted Mr.

Morrill’s medical history, “consistent with a multi-axial diagnosis, most probably in the form of a schizoaffective disorder, with symptoms including persecutory delusions and a depressed mood.” [ 120 ] During his testimony, Dr. Rai was asked about the effects of alcohol. He stated that alcohol is a dis-inhibitor of behaviour. He said that whatever is in the mind of a person, they may be able to control their behaviour but a dis-inhibitor allows thoughts to become expressed in behaviour. [ 121 ] He also said that Mr.

Morrill’s mind would have been disordered by the psychosis which accounts for his inability to verbalize and to be able to organize thoughts. This inability would have been reflected in his failure to provide information while he was in the hospital that might have assisted in his defence. Dr. Rai said would explain the “poverty of symptomatology” evident in Dr. Xie’s fitness report. He said that the early conclusion that he had been drinking likely led to a do a fitness assessment only, rather than a full NCR assessment, a very different process. [ 122 ] It was Dr.

Rai’s opinion that at the time of the offences, Mr. Morrill was probably suffering from a mental disorder and that

made him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts and that they were wrong. Dr. Oluyemisi Ayeh [123] Dr. Ayeh testified as a Crown rebuttal witness to the opinions of Dr. Woods and Dr. Rai. While her academic credentials arestrong, her experience in dealing with applications of this kind was a matter of months.

When questioned on this, she stated that Mr.Morrill’s case was not her first but it was unclear whether she was speaking of her general caseload or to NCR applications specifically. [124] In any event, she was qualified by this Court as an expert in this field with the understanding that, as with all witnesses, theCourt will determine what weight to give to the evidence. [125] Dr. Ayeh assessed Mr. Morrill on January 12, 2015. It was Dr. Ayeh’s opinion that Mr.

Morrill did not suffer from a mentaldisorder at the time of these events and was able to appreciation that his conduct was wrong. [126] In addition to her interview with Mr. Morrill, Dr. Ayeh based her opinion on the police synopsis, the historical medical files,and materials provided to her by the Crown’s office and what she gathered from other sources such as the Net Care data base onprescriptions and speaking to personnel at pharmacies. [127] Her references to Mr. Morrill having been drunk at the time of these events appears to come from references in police reportsthat Mr.

Morrill was “reportedly drunk”. [128] When cross examined about whether she took into account the fact that the same person who had made the 911 call, testifiedunder oath at the preliminary inquiry but at no time said that Mr. Morrill was drunk. Dr. Ayeh stated that she had seen the transcript ofthat evidence. [129] When pressed, Dr. Ayeh became insistent that she had read the sworn evidence but it became clear that she had relied on whatshe had read in the police report and accepted it as fact rather than relying on sworn evidence.

She appeared confused also about whatcollateral information she had taken into account. [130] One of the main planks in building her opinion was that Mr. Morrill had been functioning well in the community for the entiretime since his release from custody without medication. She based this on her own search of the Netcare data base and found that noprescriptions were recorded for Mr. Morrill. She did not ask Mr. Morrill about his medications. [131] In cross examination, Dr. Ayeh was asked whether she have would have changed her opinion had she known that Mr. Morrillwas on medication supplied by Dr.

Woods from pharmaceutical samples. She emphatically answered that she would not change heropinion. She stated that she would not accept the notion that samples could be given to a patient over a long period and in any event therewas no evidence that Mr. Morrill was actually taking the medications provided. She stated that evidence of taking medication wouldinvolve urine analysis. However, when she was assessing Mr. Morrill for her own report, she did not request the urine analysis to seewhat medications he was taking. [132] During cross- examination, Dr.

Ayeh became increasingly defensive and argumentative and entrenched in her opinion despiteerrors pointed out in the information used to form that opinion. [133] She also admitted in cross-examination that she may have told Mr. Morrill that she was assessing him because Dr. Woods’assessment was not valid. [134] In her report, and at trial, Dr. Ayeh stated that she had acquired a second opinion from a colleague, Dr. George Duska, andattempted to state what that third party had said about her assessment results. Dr.

Duska was not called to testify; there was no reportfrom him accepted by the Court; or that she had relied on something he had disclosed. Although told that this was hearsay, she blurtedout anyway that he had agreed with her. [135] Overall, Dr. Ayeh’s approach was result focussed. Her opinion as an expert was weakened substantially by intransigence andinexperience. She was not prepared to consider the implications for her opinion when faced with new information, one of the elements ofproper expert evidence stated earlier in these reasons. She also had an unfortunate court demeanour.

The Issue of Intoxication [136] Self-induced states of mental disorder during which criminal offences were committed are not contemplated by

section 16: R vBouchard-Lebrun 2011 SCC 58; R v Cooper (SCC), [1993] 1 SCR 146. [137] The question about whether Mr. Morrill was in a self-induced state of mental disorder at the time of the offences can beresolved on the facts as this Court finds them to be. [138] The first reference to alcohol in the evidence appeared in the 911 call placed by Mr. Morrill’s then girlfriend to the police. Laterthe police synopsis referred to Mr. Morrill being “reportedly drunk”. Mr. Morrill’s girlfriend was not called to testify in theseproceedings. [139] Mr.

Morrill does not appear to have a clear recollection of his drinking at that time but admits to smoking marihuana earlier inthe day and drinking three glasses of wine at the Water Valley Bar. At other times, he thought he might have had two bottles of wine. Itwas not clear when this all took place but the Court was left with the impression that the substance use began sometime in the afternoonor early evening. Mr. Morrill told other people including nursing staff at SAFPC different amounts of what he had consumed varyingfrom earlier in the day to just before the incident.

[ 140 ] There is little reliable evidence about Mr. Morrill’s actual substance intake that day. It is clear that he has a history of marihuana and alcohol use. Mr. Morrill drove home that day and was able to operate a motor vehicle safely. No adequate time line when the drinking took place was provided. There was some indication it was in the afternoon or late afternoon or in the evening not long before the incident. [ 141 ] Mr. Morrill was described by Dr. Hashman in 2000 as a “ vague historian” and that appears to be an accurate characterization through the years.

Later assessors had conflicting information from him and others about what was going on at that time. [ 142 ] Possibly the most reliable evidence about the influence of alcohol in what took place, came from the police officers and Dr. Jaffer who were with Mr. Morrill either at the time or shortly after he was apprehended. At those times, no one was reported any signs of intoxication, and no one had cause to raise a question about it. The police officers and Dr. Jaffer stated that if there had been signs of intoxication, they would have recorded it in their notes.

There is no evidence that a urinalysis was requested or considered. [ 143 ] While there is evidence that Mr. Morrill had been drinking, there is no evidence satisfactory to this Court that he was intoxicated or drunk at the time of these events. Mr. Morrill’s recollections are likely affected by what he has been told by others and his own attempts to piece together what happened to try to make sense of it all after things had settled down and he was put on antipsychotic medication. [ 144 ] I accept Mr. Morrill’s evidence that his then girlfriend was trying to get him to go to the hospital. [ 145 ] Mr.

Morrill used marijuana and alcohol some time before to the events. However, I find, on a balance of probabilities , that by the early morning hours of August 19, 2010 when the incident occurred, Mr. Morrill was not intoxicated to the extent that his conduct can be said to have been the cause of it or to have triggered a psychotic episode. [ 146 ] I accept Dr. Woods’ opinion that even if Mr. Morrill had been “acutely intoxicated its effect would have been a perpetuating as opposed to a precipitating variable., I accept Dr.

Rai’s opinion that alcohol would only serve as a dis-inhibitor of thoughts becoming behaviour. [ 147 ] The R v Bouchard- Lebrun decision is distinguishable on its facts. Mr. Morrill did not have a drug/alcohol induced psychosis. Analysis [ 148 ] The first question to be addressed is whether Mr. Morrill had a mental illness at the time the offences occurred. [ 149 ] Dr. Woods and Dr. Rai identified a mental disorder, well documented historically and found that it is probable that Mr. Morrill had that mental disorder at the material time. I give little or no weight to the assessment of Dr.

Ayeh for the reasons stated earlier in these reasons. I accept the opinions of Dr. Woods and Dr. Rai. [ 150 ] While they both saw Mr. Morrill far closer to the incidents than Dr. Ayeh, none of the experts saw him prior to having been on antipsychotic medication prescribed by Dr. Xie the first time she met with him. It must be assumed on a common sense basis that she had medical reasons for doing so. [ 151 ] The evidence of staff at SAFPC must be placed in the context of someone who was on antipsychotic and antidepressant medications from the third day he was on the unit. [ 152 ] It is well-established that Mr.

Morrill had periodic episodes of mental illness for more than a decade prior to the events of August 19, 2010. It is clear he was under considerable stress and anxiety and depression at the time. [ 153 ] It is clear that Mr. Morrill has not always been in a position to pay for the anti-psychotic drugs he has needed. Dr. Woods engaged in a commendable humanitarian gesture by providing medication to Mr. Morrill post incident until relatively recently. [ 154 ] I accept Mr. Morrill’s evidence that he self-medicated with less than desirable methods from time to time.

I find that the use of marihuana, alcohol and other substances were a symptom of his mental disorder, not the cause or trigger of it. [ 155 ] Accordingly, I find that at the time of the events of August 19, 2010, Mr. Morrill had a mental disorder of the kind contemplated by s. 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 156 ] The second question is whether the mental disorder caused Mr. Morrill to have an inability to know and appreciate what he was doing at the time or knowing it was wrong. [ 157 ] Apart from the expert opinions, there is evidence that suggests both the presence of the mental disorder and Mr.

Morrill’s lack of appreciation of what was going on. His demeanour was completely flat, silent and emotionless. When coming out of the bush with the police he exhibited no emotional or any response even when told he might be charged with at least three counts of attempted murder. He spent nearly the entire time he was in the RCMP cells lying with his face to the wall, apparently not noticing that his dog bite wounds were bleeding profusely until the jail guard called for help. [ 158 ] There was considerable loss of blood. Yet, at the hospital Mr.

Morrill’s vitals remained unchanged between the first and second hospital attendances despite as Dr. Jafar called it, “profuse” bleeding but not otherwise quantified. There was no specific indication of the extent of the loss of blood, but Dr. Jafar said no change in blood pressure in the circumstances of severe trauma would be unusual. There was no indication what would amount to severe trauma. Conclusion

[ 159 ] I have considered all of the evidence adduced during these proceedings, the relevant legal authorities and the evidence of Mr. Morrill himself, including any application of the W(

D) direction of the Supreme Court of Canada and the expert evidence that I accept. [ 160 ] The expert evidence provided sufficient understanding of Mr. Morrill’s mental disorder and it was clearly not caused by substance abuse. His conduct at the time and thereafter, and the multiple indicators of delusion which were also historic in nature and known to his family, points to an internal not an external cause. [ 161 ] I find on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Morrill had a mental disorder at the time of these offences on August 19, 2010, as described by Drs. Woods and Rai.

I find that the mental disorder deprived him of the capacity for rational perception and therefore rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of the actions in which he was engaging at that time. I find that he was not capable of appreciating that his actions were wrong because of that mental disorder. [ 162 ] Accordingly, the application that Christopher Ryan Morrill be declared not criminally responsible with respect to the charges before this Court is granted.

Heard on the 24 th to the 27 th days of May, 2016 the 30 th day of May, 2016 to the 3 rd day of June, 2016, the 4 th and the 7 th days of July, 2016 and the 12 th day of September, 2016. Delivered orally on the 12 th day of October, 2016. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 14 th day of November, 2016. M.C. Erb J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: R. Smith/K. Ramakrishnan for the Crown A. Iovinelli, QC for the Accused