R v. Lampe, 2017 NSSC 343

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Citation: R v. Lampe, 2017 NSSC 343 Date: 20170324 Docket: Hfx No. 456452 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Elias Lampe Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. MurrayHeard: March 1, 2017 in Halifax, Nova ScotiaOral Decision: March 24, 2017Subject: Not Criminally Responsible.Summary: [1] Accused was charged with the second degree murder contrary to section 235(1) andunlawful possession of a knife, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace contrary to section 88(1) ofthe Criminal Code of Canada. [2] Accused plead not guilty to the offences. The Accused suffered from an alleged mentaldisorder at the time of the offence(

s) and had a history of mental illness. Accused sought a finding ofnot criminally responsible. [3] Issues: Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that section 16(1) ofthe Criminal Code applied and whether a verdict under

section 674.34 should be rendered finding theAccused not criminally responsible of second degree murder and the s. 88(1) charge? Result: [4] Court found that pursuant to

section 672.34 of the Criminal Code of Canada, at therelevant time, the Accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to make him exempt fromcriminal responsibility by virtue of section 16(1). [5] Accused found not criminally responsible. [6] Cases cited: [7] R v. Onachie, 2015 ONSC 7928; R v. Cooper, (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R.1149; R v. Bouchard-LeBrun, 2011 SCC 58 , [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575; R v. Race, 2014 NSSC 6;R v. Hennigar, 2017 NSSC 32; R v. Molodowic, 2000 CSC 16 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420; R v.Kirkby, (1985) (ON CA), 47 C.R. (3d) 97; THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.

QUOTES MUST BE FROM THEDECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET. SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R v. Lampe, 2017 NSSC 343 Date: 20170324 Docket: Hfx No. 456452 Registry: Halifax Between:

Her Majesty the Queen v. Elias Lampe Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Murray Heard: March 1, 2017, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: March 24, 2017 Counsel: Sean McCarroll, for the Crown Roger Burrill, for the Defendant, Elias Lampe By the Court (Orally): Introduction [ 8 ] Elias Frank Joseph Lampe is charged with the second degree murder of his father, Frank John Lampe, contrary to section 235(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada .

He is further charged at the same time with the unlawful possession of a knife, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 9 ] The facts surrounding these offences as alleged in the indictment have been agreed to in writing and entered into evidence as Exhibit 1, tendered jointly by Crown and Defence. [ 10 ] As the agreed facts have been read into the record, I will not repeat them. Briefly, Elias Lampe, suddenly and without warning attacked his father with a knife on the 21 st of January, 2016.

Frank John Lampe died on that date from the stab wounds he received from the Accused. [ 11 ] The victim Mr. Lampe, Sr., was a good and gentle person and a caring and involved father. Elias Lampe has admitted to committing the act of killing his father. The facts that are placed in evidence support the admission that was made by the Accused. [ 12 ] I confirmed with Mr. Lampe that his admission was made voluntarily and with the advice of experienced counsel as was his agreement with the facts as presented. [ 13 ] Mr. Lampe has pleaded not guilty to the offences alleged.

In Canada, when a plea of not guilty is made the normal course is for the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both the actus reus (the act) and the mens rea (the intention to commit the act). [ 14 ] In this case the mental state of the Accused at the time the act was committed is in question because of an alleged mental disorder. In that case certain provisions of the Criminal Code apply. [ 15 ] Mr. Lampe has a history of mental illness. Mr. Lampe’s counsel is asking the Court to find that Mr.

Lampe is not criminally responsible for these offences. [ 16 ] The issue in this case is whether sufficient evidence has been produced to establish on a balance of probabilities that section 16(1) of the Criminal Code applies and that a verdict under

section 674.34 should be rendered finding Elias Lampe not criminally responsible of second degree murder and the s. 88(1) charge. [ 17 ] The agreed facts form part of the evidentiary foundation along with the opinions of each of the forensic psychiatrists and their qualifications. In addition, and part of the record are the Nova Scotia Health Authority records of Mr. Lampe (the medical records) and

further exhibits, including the autopsy report (Tab 5 of Exhibit 1). [ 18 ] As stated in the agreed facts, the victims death was caused by stab wounds to the neck, resulting in fatal blood loss. [ 19 ] Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code provides, in part, that no person is criminally responsible for

an act committed while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or of knowing that it was wrong. [ 20 ]

Section 16 further provides that everyone is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminally responsibility until the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities. ( R v. Onachie , 2015 ONSC 7928 ) [ 21 ] To displace the presumption of criminal responsibility two things must be established:

i) That at the time of the attack on the victim the Defendant had a mental disorder; and ii) That the mental disorder (

a) rendered the Defendant incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the acts that caused the death; or (

b) rendered the Defendant incapable of knowing that those acts were wrong. [ 22 ] Elias Lampe did not testify at trial. While it is impossible to say what exactly was in the mind of Mr. Lampe at the time, two experienced forensic psychiatrists have said that he was not capable of knowing his acts were wrong. One of those psychiatrists, Dr. Kronfli has also stated that he was not capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts. [ 23 ] In this trial the Defence has the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Lampe is exempt from criminal responsibility.

This means the Defence must show that it is more likely than not that s.16 applies. [ 24 ] Defence and Crown submit that a high degree of confidence should be taken from the conclusions of the two independent assessments. As such, it is their joint position that

section 16 of the Criminal Code applies to the Accused and a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder as outlined in

section 672.34 should be the outcome of this trial. [ 25 ] Each expert was qualified by this Court as follows: An expert in the field of forensic psychiatry capable of providing opinion evidence with respect to the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of psychiatric disorders and their impact on criminal responsibility and functioning, as well as management of psychiatric disorders and the impact of treatment on functioning and risk management. [ 26 ] The focus of the trial therefore is whether the Defence has met it’s burden. [ 27 ] Only Dr. Kronfli gave oral testimony at the trial. It was he who met with Mr.

Lampe. Background [ 28 ] Elias Lampe had been living with his father, Frank John Lampe in his father's apartment in Clayton Park, Halifax, NS. [ 29 ] John Lampe supported his son with his mental difficulties. [ 30 ] On January 21 st , 2016 the victim was home with his son, the Accused, in apartment 19 (second floor) at 10 Harlington Crescent, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The victim has lived at that address for approximately one year.

The Accused moved in with his father approximately six months prior. [ 31 ] At approximately 21:45 hours, the victim was seated at a small computer table adjacent the kitchen using a laptop computer.

Suddenly and without warning, the Accused attacked his father with a Winchester folding knife with an 8 cm blade. [ 32 ] According to a statement given by the Accused to the police, his father did not see it coming. [ 33 ] There was a trail of blood leading from the apartment and Eli Lampe was tracked by the police K-9 unit to a bus shelter. [ 34 ] Shortly after the incident a person at the nearby bus shelter called 911 to report a male covered in blood holding the knife and running towards the shelter. The male was having difficulty breathing and standing up. [ 35 ] Mr. Lampe was later arrested and charged.

Medical History [ 36 ] Exhibit 3 in evidence consists of two volumes containing the medical history of Mr. Lampe. This was admitted into evidence in support of the medical opinions and to provide the Court if needed with a basis for the facts and opinions relied upon by the experts, including Dr. Klassen. [ 37 ] Counsel for Mr. Lampe, Mr. Burrill referred to several of these documents. For example he referred to the progress report of Dr. Robert Pottle dealing with the last involvement of the East Coast Forensic Clinic before Mr.

Lampe’s file was handed over to the early psychosis program. [ 38 ] On June 26, 2015, there was a discussion with the substitute decision maker (SDM) who was John Lampe, the father, about the potential for non-compliance with medication which included a risk of violence and the possibility of self-harm. It was noted that these

risks could increase and the police were to be contacted for Elias Lampe to be taken to emergency should he refuse to go. [ 39 ] The materials also disclosed that on January 13, 2016, approximately 1 week prior to the offences as alleged, Elias Lampe had not been quite the same as the previous visit. He appeared pre-occupied, had or showed no effect, admitted to having jumbled thoughts, and had not worked in several weeks. Once again, adherence (to medication) was an issue for which Mr. Lampe was unable to give any reasons. [ 40 ] I am not going to refer to all of the details of the vast documentation.

The point as made by Defence, is that these are matters that have been highlighted by the physicians and reviewed. There is a factual basis with these documents. They have been admitted by consent to provide the historical background for Mr. Lampe’s illness. Dr. Kronfli’s Evidence [ 41 ] In qualifying Dr. Kronfli, I found him to be a seasoned practitioner in the area of forensic psychiatry.

In particular, I found him to be an expert in the area of assessing individuals charged with criminal offences who have mental disorders. [ 42 ] Among his qualifications he has been Psychiatrist in Chief, in the Mental Program for Provincial Offender Health Services from 2003 to the present. [ 43 ] Dr. Kronfli was familiar with Mr. Lampe having interviewed him several times during his stay at the East Coast Forensic Hospital where he was admitted on February 9, 2016 under an assessment order issued pursuant to

section 672.13 of the Criminal Code . Mr. Lampe at that time was 20 years of age. [ 44 ] Dr. Kronfli described the professional mental health staff at the East Coast hospital and emphasized the team approach with Mr. Lampe being monitored on a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis by staff with whom Mr. Lampe interacted. [ 45 ] Dr. Kronfli obtained extensive information from the Nova Scotia Health Authority of Mr. Lampe’s past contact with mental health services at the Early Psychosis Program and at the East Coast Forensic Hospital. [ 46 ] Dr.

Kronfli’s report includes a discussion of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence, the background history of Mr. Lampe, and evidence as to the course of his stay in hospital. [ 47 ] Dr. Kronfli provided a provisional diagnosis in his report dated March 4 th , 2016. He confirmed that Mr. Lampe’s diagnosis is “well established”, that he has schizophrenia sub-paranoid type with multiple perceptual disturbances and odd illusions. He noted that there had been an element of marijuana use but this did not contribute to his presentation. It was Dr. Kronfli’s opinion that Mr.

Lampe’s presentation was genuine and without any malingering or feigning of the illness. [ 48 ] Dr. Kronfli’s described what it means to be schizophrenic, stating in his testimony that: If somebody hears somebody saying a derogatory term about them for example, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this was actually uttered but the person can have an auditory hallucination about it. If a person gets seen or looked at in a way that means absolutely nothing to the general person, the person with schizophrenia might interpret and have hidden meanings to that look or that gesture.

We call that delusions of reference, even though it has nothing to do with them but they have a firmly held belief that it is about them. But the highlight of schizophrenia and most serious psychiatric disorder is a lack of functioning, a person can have a lot of symptoms of a disease but will not fulfil the criteria unless there is a clear loss of functioning for a very specific duration. (Emphasis added) [ 49 ] In his report and in court Dr. Kronfli testified that Mr. Lampe was quite sick upon his admission to hospital after the events of January 21, 2016. [ 50 ] As to the second arm of the test under

section 16 and it’s applicability to Mr. Lampe, Dr. Kronfli did not attempt to track the legal language in the Criminal Code . He instead focussed on his task which was to provide evidence from the point of view of a forensic psychiatrist. In direct examination he was asked by Defence counsel: Q: I’m going to ask you pointedly, with respect to paragraph 5 the first line in the second paragraph? A: Page what? Q: Page 5. A: Yeah. Q: Second paragraph. A: Yes. Q: I wanted to speak to your use of language just for clarification. A: Yes. Q: With regard to the issue of criminal responsibility Mr.

Lampe did not have any appreciation of the wrongfulness. A: Yes. Q: Now you can understand that section 16(1) says knowledge of wrongfulness.

A: Yes. Q: As opposed to appreciation and these are important distinctions for people, are you able to comment on your use of appreciation with respect to the second arm and requiring knowledge? A: Yeah, if I, if I would have looked closer at this one it probably would have been any knowledge of the wrongfulness… Q: Yes. A: …legal or ethical of what he was doing. Um, there is no doubt that the code language is very, very specific. Q: Yes. A: Um, I’m giving a psychiatric opinion, um, if I’m intentionally want to stick to the actual language in the code I would have definitely used the word knowledge. Q: Alright.

A: It does not, that was the intent… Q: Yes. A: ...that was the meaning that I’m trying to convey. Q: Thank you. A: Um, so that’s with regard to the second arm. Q: Right having had that clarified then for the record. A: Yes. [ 51 ] Dr. Kronfli therefore clarified that his reference to the second arm was intended to state that Mr. Lampe did not have knowledge of the wrongfulness of his acts. [ 52 ] In his report, Dr. Kronfli’s opinion is also that Mr. Lampe had no appreciation of the nature and quality of his actions due to the exacerbation of his psychiatric disorder. He noted that Mr.

Lampe suffered from multiple perceptual disturbances and paranoid and religious delusions. He stated that Mr. Lampe felt quite justified in his actions at the time, that lead to these charges. [ 53 ] Both of these qualified physicians recognized the importance of the medical history in their overall analysis even though they are assessing a moment in time to determine whether either one or both of the branches in

section 16 apply. [ 54 ] Dr. Kronfli’s evidence was instructive with respect to what happens to a person with a disease of the mind such as schizophrenia. He stated that each one episode or disturbance of the mind may make the illness worse and the person’s condition deteriorates when it is not managed or treated. [ 55 ] Dr. Kronfli described Mr. Lampe’s presentation of the illness as classic in terms of the mental disorder of schizophrenia. It was his view that Mr. Lampe’s illness was active at the time of these alleged offences. [ 56 ] Dr. Kronfli testified that the evidence that Mr.

Lampe was suffering from a mental disorder is beyond question. Included as a basis for his opinion is not only his assessment of Mr. Lampe, but the medical history and Mr. Lampe’s own account of the circumstances and the reasons for the killing of his father. [ 57 ] Essentially the theme of Mr. Lampe’s own account was that upon killing his father, the police would then kill him and both would come back (in the past) to start over. If the police did not kill Mr.

Lampe then he would have to do it himself thus resulting in his attempt to injure himself. [ 58 ] Under the Criminal Code it is not sufficient for an Accused to have a mental disorder to qualify under s. 16 . It must be active at the relevant time and impact the Accused such that either branch of the test in

section 16 applies. [ 59 ] I will return to the evidence of Dr. Kronfli later in my decision. Decision [ 60 ] It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Lampe was experiencing auditory hallucinations and other disturbances affecting his mind. [ 61 ] It is also clear that he was non-compliant with his medication in the time leading up to the alleged offence. [ 62 ] According to the facts he developed schizophrenia in 2014 and his mental state began to deteriorate in mid 2015. [ 63 ] In Dr. Klassen’s report at page 7 Mr. Lampe seemed to be doing better up to December 3, 2015. In his report Dr. Kronfli referred to Mr.

Lampe’s deterioration in December, 2015. This leads to January 13, 2016, when 8 days before these events, he was having jumbled thoughts and his father confirmed that for the past month he presented as different.

[64] At page 445 of the medical history there is reference to a phone call on January 20, 2016 the day before the event from Mr.Lampe’s father to Cyril McNamara. The primary reason for the call was to discuss the pharmacare coverage. This shows that his fatherwas involved in his son’s care. He was scheduled to attend a family support group session on the next day. It also confirms that closerelatives are often the victims of such tragic events. [65] Although Dr. Klassen did not assess Mr. Lampe personally his report is thorough in respect of Mr. Lampe’s history and hisreview of the relevant materials. [66] Dr.

Kronfli had the benefit of seeing Mr. Lampe on numerous occasions and of his team’s monitoring of Mr. Lampe on acontinuous basis while in the forensic hospital. He referred to Mr. Lampe as being “clearly distressed” during his admission with thevoices and telepathy he was experiencing. [67] Dr. Kronfli further confirmed that there was no attempt by him to malinger or exaggerate his symptoms. He confirmed this inhis evidence at trial stating it just wouldn’t be possible for him to feign his illness with the symptoms he was experiencing. Hispresentation was without question, genuine. [68] Dr.

Kronfli stated it is of paramount importance to him to address this issue as it goes directly to the opinion he must give. Disease of the Mind [69] There can be little doubt in the evidence that Mr. Lampe was suffering from a disease of the mind. The Crown does not contestthis. In fact, Crown and Defence agreed in the Agreed Facts that Mr. Lampe developed schizophrenia in the summer of 2014. Theyfurther agreed that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia (paranoid subtype) and treated with psychotropic medications. He was releasedinto the community and resided with his father. [70] Both psychiatrists Dr.

Kronfli and Dr. Klassen confirmed the diagnosis of schizophrenia for Mr. Lampe in their reports at pages4 and 10 respectively. [71] There is as well the extensive medical history as contained in Exhibit 3, filed with the Court and part of the evidentiary record. [72] The term mental disorder is defined in the Criminal Code as a disease of the mind. In the leading case of R v.

Cooper, (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149, “disease of the mind embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition which impairs thehuman mind and its functioning, excluding however, self-induced stated caused by alcohol or drugs, as well as transitory mental statessuch as hysteria or concussion”. [73] Although it is a legal concept the term mental disorder has a medical dimension. (R v.

Bouchard-LeBrun, 2011 SCC 58, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575) [74] I find as a matter of law that Elias Lampe at the time of the alleged offence was suffering from a mental disorder as defined inSection 2 of the Criminal Code for the purposes of

Section 16. [75] Schizophrenia has been previously accepted in several recent cases in this Court as a mental disorder under s. 16 and s. 2 of theCriminal Code. (R v. Race, 2014 NSSC 6; R v. Hennigar, 2017 NSSC 32) [76] As stated to quality for a

section 16 defence there must be sufficient proof that Mr. Lampe’s mental disorder was present andactive and that it impacted the Accused in the manner set out in

section 16, under either branch or arm of that test. [77] This is the crux of the matter. [78] As the trier of fact, I have found the evidence of Dr. Kronfli and Dr. Klassen to be of valuable assistance on the main questionof whether Mr. Lampe is criminally responsible for these offences. [79] These are two recognized experts in their field. Both considered the entire matter, including the medical history and Mr.Lampe’s own account. [80] Each physician gave their opinion independently and impartially. Both were of the opinion that Mr.

Lampe’s mental disorderrendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong, meaning wrong in the circumstances. [81] Dr. Kronfli confirmed in his oral testimony that Mr. Lampe did not have any knowledge of the wrongfulness legal or ethical ofwhat he was doing (on January 21, 2016), stating that his delusions that this was for a greater good and saving humanity resulted fromhis serious disease of the mind. He therefore had no ability to know his acts were wrong in the circumstances. [82] Dr. Klassen in his report confirms that at the material time, Mr.

Lampe because of his psychotic symptoms was deprived of thecapacity to make a rational choice. [83] Dr. Klassen elaborated by stating that Mr. Lampe’s belief system, that he would kill his father, be killed by police, presented as“quite concrete and simplistic”. I note that this accords with Dr. Kronfli who in his report referred to directives or “telepathicinstructions”, and that “since December the thought of dying and returning in the past became more evident and concrete to him”. [84] I accept the evidence of Dr. Kronfli and Dr. Klassen as to the second arm of the test.

Each of these physicians was qualified asa forensic psychiatrist having not only expertise in medicine and psychiatry, but in particular, in the application of that science to the law. [85] In the result, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not, that Elias Lampe was suffering from a mental disorder(schizophrenia) at the time these actions occurred on January 21, 2016, which rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions werewrong. The level of psychosis he was experiencing prevented him from making a rational choice whether to commit the acts or not.

[86] As was the case in Race, the position of the Crown and the opinion of the experts is largely determinative of the outcome inthis matter. This is in keeping with the leading authorities. [87] While it is not possible for a person, psychiatrist or other to positively determine what was in the Accused’s mind at the time,the opinions of experts are very influential and highly relevant. (Race) [88] Further, referring to the case of R v.

Molodowic, 2000 CSC 16 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420, there is nothing that would raiseany serious question as to the validity of the psychiatrists conclusions in this case. [89] I have also considered the facts in relation to the commission of the acts. I have considered such things as Mr. Lampe’sstatement that it would be cool, that he had personal reasons for doing what he did, and his attempt injure himself. I am satisfied thesematters were considered and taken into account by the experts in rendering their opinions. [90] I am therefore satisfied that the presumption contained in section 16(2) has been displaced.

The burden of proof has been met. This is consistent with the evidence before the Court of the psychosis Mr. Lampe was experiencing and how it impacted upon hisactions. First arm – Nature and Quality of Act [91] Although it is unnecessary for me to do so, having found that Mr. Lampe meets the second arm, I will briefly address the firstarm and whether Mr. Lampe at the time, was rendered incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act by reason of his mentaldisorder. [92] Dr. Kronfli gave compelling evidence on this point. He felt it was important to do so in the circumstances. [93] Dr.

Kronfli explained that the stabbing by Mr. Lampe was analogous to or like flicking a knob on a time machine. There wouldbe no harm but it would be cool for his father to return with him to the past. He further explained there would be no suffering, pain orknowledge of what happened because the past has changed. The nature and quality of the act of stabbing means turning a knob in a timemachine. The important aspect is that this annuls any appreciation of the acts of killing his father by Mr. Lampe. [94] Dr. Kronfli said that this assessment was gleaned from many hours of interaction with Mr. Lampe. Dr.

Kronfli was verycomfortable with his opinion on the first arm. [95] In his report Dr. Kronfli addressed this in more formal terms. He stated: The level of his psychosis at the time would not have allowed Mr. Lampe any ability to form intent or refrain from his actions. He wasoverwhelmed by the delusions of harming others and of the delusion that he had to die to be returned in the past and take a different pathwith the goal of saving the world. These delusions have a basis in Mr. Lampe’s mind as part of the symptoms of his serious disease ofthe mind. [96] Dr.

Klassen did not accept that his first arm applied to Mr. Lampe. He did not expand on his reasons, but said Mr. Lampe wasaware of the nature and quality of his acts at the material time, “insofar that he was aware that he was seriously harming or killing hisfather”. [97] The law on the first arm extends to a Defendant who because of a disease of the mind is incapable of appreciating the physicalconsequences of his or her act. This calls for the mental capacity to foresee and measure. [98] It also speaks of a Defendant being incapable in the analytical sense of appreciating the nature and quality of the act.

Forexample, appreciating that it will result in the death of a human being. [99] Based on the testimony of Dr. Kronfli, I am prepared to accept that Mr. Lampe’s state of mind would have rendered himincapable of foreseeing or measuring, in an analytical sense, the nature and quality of his actions. [100] I am cognizant that the Accused’s utterances or account is not proof of the facts asserted in them but is circumstantial evidenceto support an inference that he suffered from delusions and hallucinations. (R v. Kirkby, (1985) (ON CA), 47 C.R.(3d) 97) [101] On this point it should be noted that Dr.

Kronfli felt very strongly about his opinion because it was based on many hours ofinteraction with Mr. Lampe. Unlike Dr. Klassen he had the benefit of being familiar with Mr. Lampe, having interviewed him numeroustimes. It is not necessary that experts agree on every point. [102] Having heard Dr. Kronfli and the high degree of credibility which he delivered his opinion, I am prepared to accept on a balanceof probabilities, that Mr. Lampe, at the time of these offences did not fully appreciate the nature and quality of his acts, as he wasincapable of doing so by reason of his mental disorder.

The first arm of the test therefore, has also been satisfied. Conclusion [103] Pursuant to

section 672.34 of the Criminal Code of Canada I find that the Defendant, Elias Lampe, committed the acts thatformed the basis of the two counts in the indictment, but at the time was suffering from a mental disorder so as to make him exempt fromcriminal responsibility by virtue of section 16(1). I therefore find Mr. Lampe not criminally responsible. [104] Further and pursuant to s. 672.45 of the Criminal Code, this Court shall make no disposition but pursuant to s. 672.47 remit thematter to the Review Board established under the Criminal Code for disposition as soon a practical and in accordance with the provisionsin that

section and related sections of the Code.

Murray, J.