R. v. Veitch, 2019 NLSC 129

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Veitch , 2019 NLSC 129 Date : July 4, 2019 Docket : 201701G6802 Her Majesty The Queen v. Graham Veitch Before: Justice Sandra R. Chaytor Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: March 11-14, 20, 26, 2019 May 16-17, 2019 June 14, 2019

Summary: An 18-year-old man with no prior history of violence, and without provocation, killed his mother’s partner by repeatedly hitting him over the head with a hammer. He was charged with second degree murder and other offences related to events that transpired following the killing. The Defence did not deny that the accused committed the offences but relied on

section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada in asserting he was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder. The Court found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts that form the essential elements of each of the offences charged. The Court further concluded that the Defence had established on the balance of probabilities that the accused was suffering from a mental disorder when he carried out the acts that formed the basis of the essential elements of the offences and that the mental disorder was such that it rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was wrong.

Therefore, the accused was found not criminally responsible. Pursuant to

section 672.46 of the Code, he was placed under the care and supervision of a local psychiatric hospital until a hearing is held before the provincial Review Board to determine what order should bemade about his supervision and treatment. Appearances: Shawn Patten and Jennifer Colford Appearing on behalf of the Crown Mark Gruchy and Jason Edwards Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Ari, 2010 BCSC 999; R. v. Chaulk, (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; Cooper v. R., (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58; R. v. Abbey, (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24;Cooper v.

R., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; R. v. Oommen, (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507; R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589 (leaveto appeal denied June 27, 2019); Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R.625. STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Chaytor, J.: OVERVIEW [1] The evening of December 18, 2016 began as an ordinary evening for David Collins, his partner, Joan Veitch, and her 18-year-old son, Graham Veitch. Not unlike many families in this province, they sat together in the kitchen of their home and ate supper.

By theend of that routine evening, which began so ordinarily, horrifically extraordinary events had transpired. David Collins was brutally killedin front of Joan Veitch. Graham Veitch was charged with five criminal offences: murder in relation to the death of David Collins, assaultwith a weapon against his mother, assault with a weapon against a police officer, flight from police, and theft of David Collins’ motorvehicle. [2] Graham Veitch has been in custody since that fateful evening. At various points, he has been hospitalized at the WaterfordHospital in St.

John’s, NL but since July 18, 2018, he has been held at Her Majesty’s Penitentiary (“HMP”) in St. John’s. On March 11,2019, the day his trial was scheduled to begin by judge and jury, Mr. Veitch, with the consent of the Crown, re-elected trial by judgealone. The trial then began with the Crown reading into the record a 25-page case

summary containing an Agreed Statement of Facts.Over the course of the trial, volumes of documentary evidence were also adduced by way of consent including: police statementsobtained from Graham Veitch’s family, friends, acquaintances, and former employers; Mr. Veitch’s school records; medical records bothbefore and after his arrest; and notes pertaining to the observation of Mr. Veitch at HMP. The Crown also called evidence from policeofficers who encountered Mr. Veitch on the evening in question and in the aftermath of his arrest as well as from the forensic pathologistwho performed the autopsy on Mr. Collins. [3] The Defence relies upon

section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Code”) in submitting that,due to a mental disorder, Mr. Veitch is not criminally responsible (“NCR”) for his actions. In support of its position, the Defenceadduced evidence from forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Nizar Ladha who carried out an assessment of Graham Veitch. In reply, the Crownadduced evidence from forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Philip Klassen, who also conducted an assessment of Mr. Veitch. Both psychiatrists areof the opinion that at the material time, Graham Veitch was suffering from a mental disorder that, from a psychiatric point of view,

would bring him within the ambit of a

section 16 defence. [ 4 ] For the most part, the evidence in this case was not contentious. In this respect, this case is similar to that of R. v. Ari , 2010 BCSC 999 in which the accused was charged with second degree murder. Mr. Ari acknowledged that the Crown had made out a prima facie case of second degree murder but contended that he should be found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder. The Crown did not take serious issue with that conclusion. Nonetheless the court noted that the decision is one for the court to make based on the evidence presented at the trial.

No matter how overwhelming the evidence may appear to be, it is important, as in any case, for the Court to analyze the evidence carefully and thoroughly before reaching its decision. [ 5 ]

Section 672.34 of the Code states as follows: Where the… judge… finds that an accused committed the act or made the omission that formed the basis of the offence charged, but was at the time suffering from mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection 16(1), the…judge shall render a verdict that the accused committed the act or made the omission but is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. [ 6 ] Pursuant to

section 672.1 of the Code , a “verdict of NCR” is defined as a verdict that: (1) the accused committed the act or made the omission that formed the basis of the offence with which the accused is charged; but (2) is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. [ 7 ] Therefore, before I may consider whether Graham Veitch is not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, the Crown must first have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts included in the essential elements of each offence charged. [ 8 ] The following issues must be determined: 1.

Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements related to the actus reus of each of the offences charged? 2. If so, has the Defence proven on the balance of probabilities that Graham Veitch is not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder? [ 9 ] I have reviewed the essential elements related to the actus reus of each offence and the evidence adduced to support each. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Crown has met its burden with respect to all the offences charged.

I am further satisfied, as detailed in the reasons that follow, that the Defence has met its onus in establishing that Graham Veitch is exempt from criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder. Issue 1: Has the Crown proven the essential elements related to the actus reus of each offence?

Count 1: Section 235(1) - second degree murder [ 10 ] With respect to count 1, second degree murder, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch caused David Collins’ death and did so unlawfully. [ 11 ] To prove that Graham Veitch’s conduct caused David Collins’ death, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch’s conduct contributed significantly to the death. Dr. Nebojsa Denic was qualified to give opinion evidence in forensic pathology. He conducted the autopsy of David Collins. A copy of the autopsy report and related documentation forms part of the evidence. Dr.

Denic spoke to his report and testified as to the nature and location of the wounds on the deceased, the cause of these wounds, and their impact. He concluded that the manner of death was homicide (meaning Mr. Collins died at the hands of another person) and that the cause of death was multiple blunt force injuries to the head. The injuries sustained to the top of the skull and the injuries in the right temporal area were fatal. [ 12 ] Graham Veitch admits in his police statement that he struck David Collins multiple times over the head with a hammer and that he believed that David Collins was dead.

Graham Veitch’s mother and his brother, Brian Ozon, witnessed him striking David Collins on the head with a hammer. [ 13 ] It is clear that the Crown has proven the first element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 14 ] With respect to the second element, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch caused David Collins’ death unlawfully. While all killings are tragic, not all are unlawful. For example, in some scenarios, an individual may be killed by another person in self-defence. That is not this case. In fact, there is no evidence of any confrontation or animosity between Mr.

Veitch and Mr. Collins preceding this violent episode. In a statement to the police, Joan Veitch speaks of the unprovoked nature of the attack on David Collins. She describes Graham Veitch entering the living room from “out of nowhere” and repeatedly striking David Collins. Mr. Collins had no warning or opportunity to defend himself. [ 15 ] Although in his statement to the police, Graham Veitch speaks of the necessity of the killing to protect himself and his family and that he felt threatened by David Collins, I do not accept that as fact.

Rather, as detailed later in this decision, I accept that this was the delusion of an ill mind. I accept the characterization of David Collins as given by Joan Veitch in her statements to police: David Collins was the most respectful person she knew and that he was good to her and her family. [ 16 ] I am satisfied that this death was unlawful. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed

the acts that form the essential elements of second degree murder. Count 2:

Section 267(a) - assault with a weapon [ 17 ] With respect to count 2, Graham Veitch is charged with assault with a weapon (being the hammer) against his mother. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offence of assault simpliciter (

section 265 of the Code ) plus the added element of use of a weapon. Therefore, the Crown must prove that: 1. Graham Veitch attempted or threatened, by

an act or a gesture, to apply force to Joan Veitch; 2. it caused Joan Veitch to believe on reasonable grounds that he had present the ability to affect his purpose; and 3. he did so while carrying, using or threatening to use a weapon. [ 18 ] In a statement to police while still at the scene, Joan Veitch describes her and David Collins sitting in the living room when Graham Veitch entered the room. She states: He walked quietly over to Dave and struck him right on top of his head with the hammer. He struck him at least 3 times with the hammer.

I got up and Graham turned toward me with the hammer and made a motion as if to hit me with it. [ 19 ] In other parts of her statement she described Graham Veitch as having the hammer over his head as if he were going to strike her and that he was growling while doing this. She was afraid and ran to the garage to get her other son, Brian Ozon. In his police statement, Brian Ozon describes what he saw when he entered the house.

He describes Graham Veitch standing in a “ready to attack stance” facing him and his mother. [ 20 ] I am satisfied that Graham Veitch, by his gesture in raising the hammer in the manner he did towards his mother, while growling, thereby threatened to apply force to her.

Given that she had just witnessed him attack David Collins with the hammer and their close proximity in the living room, Joan Veitch had reasonable grounds to believe that Graham Veitch had the ability to strike her with the hammer. [ 21 ] With respect to the third element, I am satisfied that a hammer, in the context of this situation, constitutes a weapon within the definition of

section 2 of the Code . As such, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts that form the essential elements of

section 267(a) - assault with a weapon. Count 3:

Section 270.01(1)(a) – assault with a weapon against a peace officer [ 22 ] With respect to count 3, Graham Veitch is charged with having assaulted Constable Craig Edmunds of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (the “RNC”) with a weapon; in this situation the weapon was the motor vehicle operated by Mr. Veitch.

To establish the actus reus of this offence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch: 1. applied force to a police officer; 2. that the officer did not consent to the force applied; and 3. that a weapon was used in the application of force. [ 23 ] Constable Edmunds was a member of the RNC engaged in his duties at the relevant time. He along with other members of the force, were attempting to locate and apprehend Mr. Veitch following the attack on Mr. Collins. The Agreed Statement of Facts speaks to the other elements of this offence.

Constable Sutherland and Constable Edmunds came upon Mr. Veitch operating a vehicle at which point Constable Edmunds attempted to block the road. Constable Sutherland saw Constable Edmunds out of his vehicle with his firearm drawn and witnessed Mr. Veitch drive the vehicle into Constable Edmunds, pushing him up onto the hood of the vehicle and then falling off. At no time did Mr. Veitch apply the brakes. Constable Edmunds describes before the impact stepping toward Mr. Veitch’s vehicle with his firearm pointed, yelling commands and Mr.

Veitch nonetheless continuing forward and driving into him. [ 24 ] Sergeant Ron Simms of the RNC took photographs of the vehicle operated by Graham Veitch. In his testimony, he reviewed photographs that depicted damage to the front of the vehicle including the hood area. The damage to the vehicle is consistent with the area described by Constable Sutherland and Constable Edmunds as to where Constable Edmunds was struck by the vehicle. [ 25 ] Finally, with respect to the third element, I am satisfied that the motor vehicle in the context of this factual scenario fits the definition of a weapon pursuant to

section 2 of the Code . [ 26 ] Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts that form the essential elements of this offence pursuant to

section 270.01(1) (

a) of the Code . Count 4:

Section 249.1(1) - flight from police [ 27 ] With respect to count 4, Graham Veitch is charged with flight from police contrary to

section 249.1(1) of the Code . To establish the actus reus of this offence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Veitch: 1. operated a motor vehicle while being pursued by police; 2. failed to stop without reasonable excuse; 3. as soon as reasonable in the circumstances. [ 28 ] Inspector Alex Brennan of the RNC testified with respect to several telephone conversations he had with Graham Veitch on the evening in question as Mr. Veitch was operating Mr. Collins’ vehicle. The audio recording of some of the conversations was played in Court.

Inspector Brennan testified as to his efforts to convince Mr. Veitch to pull over so the police could speak with him. Mr. Veitch did not comply. [ 29 ] The Agreed Statement of Facts further describes several occasions during the evening in which Mr. Veitch failed to stop for the police or stopped briefly and then continued driving. For example, at one point, Constable Edmunds observed the vehicle being operated by Mr. Veitch and activated his emergency equipment. Mr. Veitch pulled onto the shoulder of the road but then accelerated away. Furthermore immediately prior to Mr.

Veitch ultimately being stopped by the police, he attempted to drive the vehicle through a

blockade. Graham Veitch admits in his police interview that he had been involved in car chases with the police on the evening inquestion. [30] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts that form theessential elements of

section 249.1(1) - flight from police. Count 5:

section 333.1(1)(a) - theft of a motor vehicle [31] With respect to count 5, Graham Veitch is charged with theft of David Collins’ motor vehicle contrary to

section 333.1(1)(

a) ofthe Code. To establish the actus reus of this offence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch: 1. tookDavid Collins’ motor vehicle for his own use; and 2. did so fraudulently and without colour of right. [32] Both Joan Veitch and Brian Ozon stated that following the attack on David Collins, Graham Veitch left the house driving Mr.Collins’ vehicle. Brian Ozon states that he and his brother did not generally have access to that vehicle. [33] The Agreed Statement of Facts refers to Graham Veitch being located and stopped by police while driving David Collins’vehicle.

Sergeant Ron Simms testified that he confirmed the vehicle was owned by David Collins. Furthermore, during his policeinterview Graham Veitch stated that he “stole” David Collins’ vehicle. [34] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts that form theessential elements of

section 333.1(1)(a) - theft of David Collins’ motor vehicle. Issue 1: Conclusion [35] I am satisfied that on the basis of the admissions made by Graham Veitch by way of the Agreed Statement of Facts and hisstatements to the police, as well as the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence, the Crown has proven beyond areasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts that form the essential elements of each of the offences charged.

Issue 2: Has the Defence proven that Graham Veitch is not criminally responsible? [36] Having determined that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts that form theessential elements of each of the offences charged, I now turn to the crux of this case which is consideration of whether the Defence hasproven on the balance of probabilities that Graham Veitch is exempt from criminal responsibility due to the nature and extent of a mentaldisorder at the time of committing the offences. I find that the Defence has met its onus. [37] Pursuant to

section 16 of the Code, the presumption is that Graham Veitch does not suffer from a mental disorder and he ispresumed to be criminally responsible for his actions. He may disprove this presumption by establishing on the balance of probabilitiesthat at the time of committing the acts that form the essential elements of the offences charged: 1. he suffered from a mental disorder; and 2. the mental disorder was to such an extent that it rendered him incapable of either (

a) appreciating the nature and quality of his conduct; or (

b) knowing that what he did was wrong. If he meets this burden of proof, he will not be criminally responsible for his conduct which otherwise would constitute crimes. [38] In R. v. Chaulk, (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303 at paragraphs 27 and 28, the Supreme Court of Canada explainedthat the principle underlying an NCR defence is that an accused has no capacity for criminal intent because his or her mental conditionhas brought about a skewed frame of reference. An accused in such a situation does not fit within the normal assumptions of our criminallaw model because he or she does not have the capacity for criminal intent. If the incapacity is such that it fits into the defenceencompassed by

section 16, it precludes a conviction. (

a) Did Graham Veitch suffer from a mental disorder at the relevant time? [39]

Section 2 of the Code defines ‘mental disorder’ as a disease of the mind. It includes any illness, disorder or abnormal conditionthat impairs a person’s mind and its functioning. [40] In Cooper v. R., (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that ‘disease of the mind’ isa legal concept. It is for me, as trial judge, to determine, as a question of law, whether a condition falls within the term ‘disease of themind’ (R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58). [41] Subsequent to his arrest, Graham Veitch was diagnosed with schizophrenia by three separate psychiatrists: Dr.

David Craig, Dr.Nizar Ladha, and Dr. Phillip Klassen. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder within the meaning of

section 2 of the Code. The first keyquestion then is whether Mr. Veitch was suffering from this mental disorder at the time of the offences. [42] Dr. Ladha was qualified to give opinion evidence in forensic psychiatry. He assessed Mr. Veitch on two occasions in September2017, some 9 months after the incidents that gave rise to these charges. Dr. Ladha also interviewed Joan Veitch and reviewed the RNCreports related to Mr. Veitch’s arrest and the officers’ observations of Mr. Veitch at the time as well as the statements taken by the RNC

from people familiar with Graham Veitch. [ 43 ] Dr. Ladha prepared a report dated December 19, 2017 which was adduced into evidence. Since the preparation of this report, he had also reviewed the Agreed Statement of Facts, the clinic notes of Dr. David Craig (who saw Mr. Veitch many times during his incarceration), Dr. Klassen’s report and Mr. Veitch’s school records. He also viewed the video of Mr. Veitch’s interview with the police on the evening he was arrested. [ 44 ] Dr. Philip Klassen was retained by the Crown. He was qualified to give opinion evidence in forensic psychiatry. Dr.

Klassen completed a 29-page report dated March 7, 2019 after having interviewed Mr. Veitch in February 2019. He also reviewed most of the documentary evidence in this case including police witness statements and statements given by Mr. Veitch, as well as his hospital records during his time at the Waterford Hospital post-arrest, his school records, the clinic notes of Dr. David Craig, and Dr. Ladha’s report. [ 45 ] Dr. Ladha and Dr. Klassen both described the positive, negative and cognitive symptoms of schizophrenia. Positive symptoms include hallucinations (commonly auditory) and delusions.

Auditory hallucinations are when a person hears a sound or voice in the absence of stimulus. Dr. Klassen defined delusions as fixed false beliefs that are not grounded in reality or shared by others. Negative symptoms include social withdrawal, lack of expression, flat affect, and decline in personal care and hygiene. Cognitive symptoms include a decline in one’s ability to follow instructions. [ 46 ] During his assessment of Mr. Veitch, Dr. Ladha noticed that he sat in a stiff position and hardly moved. He had no eye contact; his speech was monotonous and his affect was flat.

He described being scared and that demons were after him. He said he knew this because he was getting messages from people. He also believed there were people following him around and that people at work were going to come after him. Mr. Veitch told Dr. Ladha that he was scared at home and believed that David Collins was constantly threatening him, “kind of haunting him” and acted like he was going to kill him. He also believed that Mr. Collins was hurting his mother and was fearful for the safety of his mother and his brother.

He believed at the time he attacked David Collins that it was the right thing to do as he thought it was necessary to protect himself and his family. [ 47 ] Dr. Ladha concluded that Graham Veitch’s thought content was delusional. By the end of his first assessment, he had reached the opinion that Mr. Veitch was schizophrenic. [ 48 ] During his assessment of Mr. Veitch, Dr. Klassen noted Mr. Veitch’s affective range was significantly flattened and that he made very little eye contact. Dr. Klassen also detailed in his report the paranoid feelings Mr.

Veitch reported having in the months preceding the commission of these offences. In particular, Mr. Veitch discussed his feelings of paranoia regarding Mr. Collins. Dr. Klassen is of the opinion that Mr. Veitch suffers from schizophrenia and that the extensive documentation paints a picture of a young man who experienced a classic trajectory towards psychosis consistent with schizophrenia. Mr. Veitch had auditory hallucinations and delusions.

He gradually became isolated and his function declined: his relationship with his girlfriend ended due to his unusual behavior; he began to see friends less frequently; he left school; and his work performance declined. [ 49 ] In his report Dr. Klassen writes: “Latterly, it’s become clear that Mr. Veitch was quite psychotic prior to, and at the material time, and subsequently; he’s reported auditory hallucinations, paranoid and referential delusions, and other symptoms consistent with schizophrenia. The diagnosis of schizophrenia also requires functional decline; that’s clearly been present, here.

Further, this gentleman has responded, both behaviourally and in terms of his psychotic symptoms and emotional state, to treatment with antipsychotic medication…” [ 50 ] Having reviewed the statements of persons close to Mr. Veitch which detail significant changes observed in him beginning in the Spring of 2016, Dr. Ladha opined that the schizophrenia probably started a few months before those changes became apparent. Dr. Klassen explained that there is usually a gradual progression and change of the person and that during the first half of 2016 and certainly by the second half of 2016, it is clear that Mr.

Veitch was suffering from psychotic symptoms. It is his opinion that Mr. Veitch was quite psychotic prior to the offenses being committed and for some time thereafter and that his illness continued to manifest until the middle of 2017 when antipsychotic medications were started. Evidence of illness prior to December 18, 2016 [ 51 ] Joan Veitch described a change in her son beginning around March 2016. He had been social but at that time began staying in his room and keeping to himself. His personal care and hygiene declined. Mr. Veitch was also having difficulty following simple instructions. Ms.

Veitch recognized that her son was unwell and sought care for him. [ 52 ] Mr. Veitch’s former boss at a local restaurant noted that he used to be a good employee, however, he began having work issues such as having difficulty following simple instructions for recipes. He also showed up for work one day in his pajamas. Dr. Ladha opined that Mr. Veitch’s issues at work demonstrate that he was having cognitive problems indicative of schizophrenia. [ 53 ] Mr. Veitch’s friend Evan Boland also noticed a change in Mr. Veitch’s behavior in the months leading up to these offences. Mr.

Boland felt his friend was acting strange and was simply not the same person he had been. He had become increasingly withdrawn and had lost the ability to converse normally. He also apologized excessively and repeatedly asked questions which had just been answered. Mr. Boland also observed Mr. Veitch demonstrate odd emotional behavior, including crying for no apparent reason and then trying to force himself to cry. As well, he said things that did not make sense regarding threats from motorcycle gangs. Mr. Boland was concerned for his friend’s mental health. Dr.

Ladha was of the opinion that the changes described by Evan Boland were most probably a psychotic process. [ 54 ] Karissa Clarke is Mr. Veitch’s former girlfriend. Mr. Veitch spent a lot of time with her throughout 2016 up until the Fall when the relationship ended. In her statement to police she reported that around May 2016, Mr. Veitch’s behaviour began to change. He had become extremely socially withdrawn and had begun to talk to himself or engage in what appeared to her to be dialogue with someone not present. On occasion he also banged his head on the walls and floors.

She also indicated that he had demonstrated paranoid

behaviors, including waking her up late in the evening saying it was not safe and requesting that he be brought home. On another occasion they were watching a movie together at her home when Mr. Veitch got up and turned off all the lights and began pacing around. She stated that he was “talking to like voices or something, he was like fighting with someone in his head…” He kept repeating to her that it was not safe and that this was not real life. [ 55 ] Dr. Ladha discussed the episodes described by Karissa Clarke. He is of the opinion that the events described by her are likely of a psychotic process. Dr.

Klassen found Karissa Clarke’s statement to be particularly instructive in forming his opinion. The events described by her, in his opinion, are definitely examples of active psychosis that a person is trying to contain. In particular, it is evidence of Mr. Veitch having auditory hallucinations in that he appeared to be having conversations with entities that were not present. [ 56 ] During his police interview, Mr. Veitch speaks to issues he was having in the time period leading up to the night in question. He references ringing noises and things going on in his head. Dr.

Ladha testified that these are perceptual disturbances and possibly delusions or hallucinations. Mr. Veitch also repeatedly refers to having felt threatened by Mr. Collins and doing what he had to do to protect himself and his family. Both Dr. Ladha and Dr. Klassen testified that this is evidence of psychosis. Mr. Veitch’s perception of Mr. Collins was not based in reality. Evidence of illness at the time of the offences and in the immediate aftermath [ 57 ] Brian Ozon described his brother during the attack on Mr.

Collins and in the immediate aftermath as looking “freaky” with his eyes completely wide open. [ 58 ] The Court heard audio evidence of a series of telephone conversations between Inspector Brennan and Mr. Veitch on the evening in question after the attack on Mr. Collins and before he was apprehended. During those conversations Mr. Veitch can be heard hesitating in trying to answer basic questions such as his brother’s name and whether he is older than his brother. He also has to pause and think before stating that his mother is older than him. Dr. Klassen referred to these conversations and noted that Mr.

Veitch’s linkage between concepts was missing. No two sentences seemed to bear relationship to one another. In Dr. Klassen’s opinion this is evidence of thought disorder which is seen in schizophrenia. [ 59 ] With respect to the moments preceding Mr. Veitch striking Constable Edmunds with the motor vehicle, Constable Edmunds described him in his notes as follows, “Male looked at me in the eyes. Looked like a zombie. Emotionless. Looking through me.” Dr. Ladha testified that this provides a glimpse into Mr. Veitch’s possible mental status at the time.

He is emotionless and does not seem to be processing that there is a serious event happening. In terms of the description of looking like a zombie, Dr. Ladha explained that a person with psychosis often looks different from how they would normally appear. In Dr. Ladha’s opinion, Mr. Veitch was at least exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia and was probably delusional and suffering from psychosis at the time that he drove car at Constable Edmonds. [ 60 ] When Mr. Veitch was finally stopped by the police, he was non-compliant with their instructions. They had to break the window in the vehicle to extricate him.

The arresting officers described him as being limp in the vehicle and having a blank stare while sitting with his hands on his lap and not moving. In his evidence, Inspector Brennan described Mr. Veitch as being immobile and in a “catatonic” state when arrested. It was as though he was lifeless. In fact, his condition was such that Inspector Brennan checked Mr. Veitch’s pulse to confirm he was breathing. Dr. Ladha testified that this is evidence of Mr. Veitch being in a psychotic state. Mr. Veitch fails to display an appropriate reaction to the situation.

It also shows evidence of a degree of catatonia during the arrest. [ 61 ] When brought to the police station, Sergeant Colin McNeill met with Mr. Veitch. Sergeant McNeill testified as to his interactions with Mr. Veitch that evening and the following day when he interviewed him. Video evidence was adduced of Sergeant McNeill’s interactions with Mr. Veitch. The extent of Mr. Veitch’s difficulties at that time was clear to the Court from viewing this video footage. Sergeant McNeill is to be commended for his patience and handling of Mr. Veitch as he repeatedly tried to assist Mr.

Veitch in understanding the simplest aspects of his legal rights in the situation of his arrest. Mr. Veitch is clearly confused at times and has difficulty understanding basic concepts. He also frequently responds slowly and inconsistently to simple questions. [ 62 ] Dr. Ladha commented upon Mr. Veitch’s manner of speech during the interview noting that he struggles to articulate and speaks slowly in a monotonous tone. Dr. Ladha testified that this is evidence of Mr. Veitch having difficulty formulating his thoughts and finding his words. This is consistent with schizophrenia. He also noted that Mr.

Veitch appears to be almost in a catatonic state in that he shows little movement of his limbs and head, does not make eye contact, and has very little verbalization. [ 63 ] Furthermore, during the interview Mr. Veitch waves his arms randomly and refers to there being sounds everywhere when there are no sounds apparent. Dr. Ladha testified that in his opinion, it is probable at that point Mr. Veitch was hearing noises or voices and that in the full context of this case, this is symptomatic of his illness. [ 64 ] Sergeant McNeil described Mr. Veitch during the interview as being “absent”.

He testified that there were times he would speak and then this would be followed by awkward moments of silence. Sergeant McNeil has conducted hundreds of similar interviews over the course of his career and while everyone reacts differently, he described Mr. Veitch as being “unique” from other people. He described Mr. Veitch’s behavior in the interview room as odd and a “marked departure” from what he had observed in the past. [ 65 ] The Court also viewed extensive video of the monitoring of Mr. Veitch while in police custody on the evening of his arrest. There are many examples observed of odd behaviours by Mr.

Veitch including taking his clothes on and off for no apparent reason and grimacing and making facial expressions. Dr. Ladha testified that taken in context, this is consistent with Mr. Veitch having schizophrenic symptoms on the night of the offenses. Mr. Veitch is also observed doing push-ups excessively and randomly. Dr. Klassen stated that this is purposeless behavior that shows a disorganized thought process consistent with schizophrenia. [ 66 ] Mr.

Veitch’s odd behaviors and difficulty in comprehending simple instructions continued into the following day and was observed by Constable Lisa Fitzgerald, and then-officer Marina Carbonelle, during their processing of Mr. Veitch. In their testimony, both described Mr. Veitch’s difficulty in following simple instructions. For example, he seemed confused when asked to stand on the brown paper utilized by the officers and repeatedly moved off the paper. Ms. Carbonelle and Constable Fitzgerald both testified that

based upon their experience with processing other accused persons, Mr. Veitch’s behavior was unusual. That same day, while Mr. Veitchwas being transported to court, Constable Tibbo noted that he appeared to be nervous and paranoid. Dr. Ladha testified that thebehaviour described is consistent with psychosis. Evidence of illness while in custody [67] Dr. Klassen testified that Mr. Veitch’s illness progressed and manifested more acutely once he was in custody. He describedMr. Veitch’s behavior in this time period as being very disturbed and it is his opinion that it is a continuation of his psychosis.

Symptomsof schizophrenia apparent while in custody included: drinking out of the toilet, posturing, and eating feces. [68] The records adduced into evidence show that as early as December 30, 2016, while being assessed at the Waterford Hospital, ina detailed progress note, Mr. Veitch reported hearing “all kinds of voices” which he later describes as noise. At HMP the concerningbehaviours continued. In January 2017, clinic and unit notes from HMP record him as having drank toilet water and being distractedwhile in conversation and “spacing out”.

In February 2017, he is recorded as eating paint chips off the wall and having his head in thetoilet. He is placed on suicide precaution twice in March 2017 and at that time reports ‘things going on in his head’ such as voices. He isalso noted to have poor eye contact and his range of affect was restricted. By May 2017, Dr. Craig had become suspicious of a “possiblepsychotic disorder” and Mr. Veitch was placed on a therapeutic trial of an anti-psychotic. Up to that point, Mr. Veitch had been seen atHMP by a psychiatrist essentially on a weekly basis since January 17, 2017.

Within a month of starting treatment, the notes indicate mostof Mr. Veitch’s bizarre behaviours had ceased. [69] On December 18, 2017, Dr. Craig was contacted by defence counsel and advised of Dr. Ladha’s diagnosis and a request wasmade to have Mr. Veitch transferred to the Waterford Hospital for further assessment and treatment. Mr. Veitch was immediatelytransferred. Potential other causes for behavior [70] Dr. Klassen was asked to comment on whether in his opinion Mr. Veitch’s behaviors could be due to cannabis use ormalingering.

With respect to cannabis use, in his report he stated: “Accordingly, it’s not my opinion that this gentleman’s behaviour at the material time was driven by psychotic symptoms that wereprimarily, or even significantly, referable to cannabis intoxication.” [71] Dr. Klassen described malingering as a description of a behavior or a production of symptoms in the absence of true symptomsfor a benefit. The clinic notes while Mr. Veitch is in custody reference malingering. In March and April 2017, Mr. Veitch is described inthose notes as an “odd” individual. He is thought to be malingering.

On March 13, 2017 he is seen by a psychiatrist at HMP. He hadbeen placed on suicidal precaution after having cut his arm with a razor. At that time, he reported to the psychiatrist that there werethings going on in his head which he described as “voices and stuff - nothing really serious”. He maintained poor eye contact during theassessment. The clinic note concludes by stating it appears that Mr. Veitch is attempting to feign a mental illness, presumably to evaderesponsibility for his actions. [72] Dr. Klassen is of the opinion that the probability of malingering in this case is low.

He noted that in this case there is no historyof Mr. Veitch being a deceptive or manipulative person. He also stated that it is difficult to malinger negative symptoms; for example, tosit in one position for hours or not have eye contact. In addition, Mr. Veitch was rejected by his friends due to his strange and erraticbehavior, and had difficulty functioning at work and school long before these offences occurred. Dr. Klassen also referred to thesignificant period of time that Mr. Veitch basically spent in what he describes as his “own feces” once in custody. Dr.

Klassen stated it ishighly unlikely one could do this for more than a day unless you were genuinely very unwell. Furthermore Dr. Klassen stated that if aperson is malingering, they would have an atypical response to the antipsychotic medication. In this case, Mr. Veitch responded exactlyon time and course. [73] I accept Dr. Klassen’s opinion with respect to cannabis intoxication. Furthermore, I conclude that malingering is not relevant inthis case. Mr. Veitch’s behavior was not contrived. It was driven by psychosis due to schizophrenia.

Conclusion on existence of mental disorder [74] I am satisfied that the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that Graham Veitch was suffering from the mentaldisorder schizophrenia and was exhibiting symptoms of the illness for a period of time leading up to the night in question and throughoutthe time of committing the acts which form the basis of the offences charged. (

b) The Effect of the Mental Disorder [75] I must now turn to the question of whether I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the mental disorder was such that it made Mr. Veitch either incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his conduct, or of knowing that his conduct was wrong. [76] In this respect, there was some disagreement between Dr. Ladha and Dr. Klassen. Dr. Ladha was of the opinion that Mr. Veitchfits both branches of the test. Dr. Klassen was of the opinion that he fits only the second. These are two separate branches. A mentaldisorder that meets either is sufficient to relieve Mr.

Veitch of criminal responsibility. [77] Under the first branch, the mental disorder must have rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act.There is a distinction between ‘to appreciate’ and ‘to know’ in that ‘to appreciate’ means more. It requires both knowledge andunderstanding. Therefore, to appreciate the “nature and quality of

an act” connotes more than mere knowledge of the physical characterand consequences of the act. A person is incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of

an act when he does not have the capacity tounderstand the character and consequences of what he has done (R. v. Abbey, (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; Cooper v. R., (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149).

[78] With respect to the first branch of the test, I agree with Dr. Klassen that Mr. Veitch does not meet this aspect of the test. I findthat Mr. Veitch was aware that he was striking Mr. Collins with a hammer, and appreciated that in doing so he could, and likely would,kill him. I have also considered his actions in disposing of the hammer and his other admissions in his police interviews including that hestole Mr. Collins’ car and that he was evading police. He understood the character and consequences of what he was doing.

As such, Iconclude that he appreciated the nature and quality of his actions. [79] Under the second branch, the mental disorder must have rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong. Thismeans morally wrong. To be entitled to an NCR defence pursuant to this branch of the test, because of his mental disorder, Mr. Veitchmust have been incapable of knowing that his conduct was something he should not do according to the accepted standards of our society(R. v.

Oommen, (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507). [80] In Oommen at paragraph 26, the Supreme Court of Canada explained that the crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lackedthe capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do the act or not.Evidence of delusions which make the accused perceive

an act which is wrong to be right or justifiable and a disordered condition of themind which deprives an accused of the ability to rationally evaluate what he is doing, will suffice to meet this branch of the test. [81] In the recent case, R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589 (leave to appeal to S.C.C. denied June 27, 2019), at paragraph 24, the OntarioCourt of Appeal confirmed its

interpretation of the test in Oommen. An accused, who through the distorted lens of his mental illness,sees his conduct as justified, not only according to his own view, but also according to the norms of society, lacks the capacity to knowthat his act is wrong. That accused has an NCR defence. Similarly, an accused who, on account of mental disorder, lacks the capacity toassess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms lacks the capacity to know his act is wrong and is entitled to an NCR defence. [82] From a psychiatric perspective, Dr.

Klassen is of the opinion that a defence of not criminally responsible due to mental disorderis available to Mr. Veitch on the basis that he did not understand the moral wrongfulness of his actions. In offering this opinion, he notesthat Mr. Veitch had reportedly never been previously violent and that there was no animus between Mr. Collins, and Mr. Veitch, prior tothe onset of Mr. Veitch’s illness. As such, there was no apparent non-psychotic motivation or provocation and it appears that Mr. Veitchkilled Mr.

Collins because he was experiencing intense paranoid delusions regarding the safety of his family and himself. Dr. Klassennotes Mr. Veitch’s reference to having felt compelled to do what he did. [83] Dr. Ladha is also of the opinion that Graham Veitch did not know that his actions were wrong and in fact, believed he wasdoing the right thing to protect himself and his family. Like Dr. Klassen, Dr. Ladha noted that Mr. Veitch is not an aggressive man. Mr.Veitch himself stated that he did not think he had it in him to do what he did. Dr. Ladha shares the opinion that Mr. Veitch wasdelusional about Mr.

Collins and because of the delusion, he felt threatened and believed what he did had to be done. [84] In the interview with Sergeant McNeil, in referring to having killed David Collins, Mr. Veitch repeatedly says it had to happen.He said he did what he thought was right in that he believed he was protecting himself, his mother and his brother from David Collinswho he describes as assaultive. I accept that this was not true but because of his mental disorder, Graham Veitch believed it to be so. [85] We still have a long way to go in our society in understanding mental illness.

It is difficult for lay people to understand and fullyaccept that a person who commits a horrifically violent crime was propelled by illness. How is it that Graham Veitch could feelthreatened by David Collins, who by all accounts was good to his family? How is it that Mr. Veitch could not choose more rationaloptions to address his perceived situation? Dr. Klassen explained it well. Delusions direct behavior. The delusion can become so intensethat it crowds out the opportunity to see alternatives and make rational choices. In this case, the delusional system imposed its ownmorality on Mr.

Veitch and because of the delusion he felt compelled to act to protect his family. Conclusion on effect of mental disorder [86] I find that because of his illness, Mr. Veitch experienced serious compromise in his rational perception and therefore wasunable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. This meets the test enunciated in Oommen. I conclude that because of his mentaldisorder and the delusional state of mind from which he was suffering at the time, Mr. Veitch lacked the capacity to know that hisactions were wrong in that he was unable to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms.

Furthermore, I accept theopinions of Dr. Klassen and Dr. Ladha that the psychosis from which Mr. Veitch was suffering spanned the entire time of all theoffences for which Mr. Veitch is charged and in fact, lasted for quite some time after his incarceration. Issue 2: Conclusion [87] I am satisfied that the Defence has met its onus. I conclude that Graham Veitch was suffering from a mental disorder when he committed these offences and that the mental disorder made him incapable of knowing that his conduct was wrong. Therefore, GrahamVeitch is not criminally responsible for his actions.

summary and conclusion: [88] The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham Veitch committed the acts that form the essential elements ofeach of the offences charged. [89] However, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities that Graham Veitch was suffering from a mental disorder when he carriedout the acts. I am further satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the mental disorder made him incapable of knowing that his conduct was wrong. [90] Therefore, I find Graham Veitch not criminally responsible. In so concluding, this does not mean that Mr.

Veitch is free to go.In this regard, although there is no evidence before the Court as to Mr. Veitch’s current thought process, it is noted that at the time ofDr. Klassen’s assessment, Mr. Veitch was being treated but had not completely relinquished his thinking about Mr. Collins andcontinued to endorse that he faced a real threat from Mr. Collins.

[91] Pursuant to

section 672.46 of the Code, Graham Veitch is to be immediately placed under the care and supervision of the Waterford Hospital, St. John’s, NL until a hearing is held before the provincial Review Board to determine what order should be madeabout his supervision and treatment. In accordance with

section 672.47 of the Code, the matter of disposition in respect of GrahamVeitch is referred to the Review Board. Pursuant to

section 672.45(1.1) of the Code, a complete transcript of the court proceedings andany documentation or information related to the proceedings, and all exhibits filed are to be sent, without delay, to the Review Board.The Board must hold a hearing within forty-five days of this judgment. [92] In conclusion, I would like to speak briefly to the nature of this case for all involved. The tragedy of Mr. Collins’ death isevident. As tragic as his death is however, this is a clear case of a young man who suffers from a mental disorder. The evidenceoverwhelmingly supported that at the time of Mr. Collins’ death, Mr.

Veitch’s mental disorder was such that he was not capable ofknowing that his conduct was morally wrong. In such situations, it is not appropriate for Mr. Veitch to be incarcerated for purposes ofpunishment. It is appropriate to separate him from society, however, it must be with an emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation. Toparaphrase McLachlin, J. (as she then was) in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), (SCC),[1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 at paragraph 91, Mr.

Veitch is entitled to sensitive care, rehabilitation and meaningful attempts to foster hisparticipation in the community to the maximum extent compatible to his actual situation. Restrictions on his liberty are to be imposed foressentially rehabilitative and not punitive purposes. _____________________________ Sandra R. Chaytor Justice