R v Ramirez, 2023 MBCA 54

Citation: R v Ramirez, 2023 MBCA 54 Date: 20230612 Docket: AR22-30-09837 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner Madam Justice Karen I. Simonsen BETWEEN : his majesty the king ) M. A. Zurbuchen ) for the Appellant Respondent ) ) M. E. Carlson - and - ) for the Respondent ) MILLES RAMIREZ ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: Appellant ) June 12, 2023 mainella JA (for the Court) : [ 1 ] The appellant appeals a disposition of the Manitoba Review Board (the Board) dated January 25, 2023—that he be detained in custody in a hospital subject to certain conditions allowing for supervised community living (see

section 672.72 of the Criminal Code (the Code )). [ 2 ] By way of background, in 2021, the appellant was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for the 2019 murder of his father while he was suffering paranoid delusions.

The issue before the Board related to the appellant’s reintegration back into the community and whether he would be transferred from a locked forensic unit in the hospital to a community group home on an extended pass (the direct option) or whether his transition would be graduated and he would be transferred to a less secure area of the hospital and attend the group home on a temporary pass while his progress was monitored (the graduated option). The Board endorsed the graduated option for a trial period. [ 3 ] We reject the appellant’s first submission that it was unreasonable within the meaning of

section 672.78(1) (

a) of the Code for the Board to prefer the graduated option despite the appellant’s treatment team advancing the direct option in its comprehensive risk assessment report (the CRAR). [ 4 ] There is no serious shortcoming with the Board’s decision to warrant appellate interference. The Board has the expertise and mandate to make difficult decisions regarding risk and liberty interests. It was entitled to prefer other circumstances in the record before it that favoured a more restrictive disposition than proposed by the CRAR. The role of this Court is not to reconsider the factors set out in

section 672.54 of the Code or substitute our opinion for that of the Board’s on the merits (see R v Owen , 2003 SCC 33 at paras 33-34 ; and Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v Ontario (Attorney General) , 2004 SCC 20 at para 73 ). [ 5 ] The result reached by the Board and the reasons provided, when read as a whole, are internally coherent and justified in light of the relevant legal and factual constraints (see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 99-101 ).

In its reasons, the Board highlighted that, while the appellant has made substantial progress towards addressing his longstanding mental illness, his antecedents of extreme violence, the short time he has displayed stability and his long history of serious mental illness warranted “caution” on his reintegration into society.

This conclusion of the Board is entirely reasonable as it exhibits the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency. [ 6 ] We also are not persuaded by the appellant’s other argument that the Board’s decision is tainted by the material error of failing to apply the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in the specific circumstances (see

section 672.54 of the Code ; and Mazzei v British Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services) , 2006 SCC 7 at para 19 ). In its decision, the Board made clear that, if the “transition [was] uneventful,” it would be prepared to consider an extended pass to allow the appellant to reside at the group home. The Board’s decision is proportionate and entirely justifiable in light of the governing legislation and the specific circumstances.

[ 7 ] In the result, the appeal is dismissed. JA JA JA