The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Luis Fernando Manrique’s appeal and returned the matter to the Ontario Review Board for rehearing on the issue of whether or not he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Judgment is available on the Court’s website here:
https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/22637/1/document.do
The Court held:
[9] However, while we recognize that the Board set out the proper test for establishing a significant threat to public safety, the Board’s reasons were insufficient to explain how it reached the conclusion that the appellant meets that standard. As noted by the Board, this court has emphasized that the significant threat standard is an onerous one. In our view, the Board’s assertion that there would be “a predictable decline in [the appellant’s] mental status leading to decompensation and a heightened risk to public safety” does not explain how the appellant meets the significant threat standard. Further, the Board’s statements about the treating psychiatrist not being able to guarantee post-discharge forensic support and its reference to the “ideal scenario” of non-forensic support being “adequately in place” suggest the Board may have been focused on minimizing any risk created through granting the appellant an absolute discharge rather than properly assessing whether he met the significant threat threshold.
Law360 Reporter Terry Davidson wrote an article published on September 6, 2024 about the case here:
anitaszigeti 