Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 1986, the Appellant was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a number of counts of theft, robbery, unlawful confinement, breaking and entering, and assault with a weapon. He was ordered to be held at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor in Council in strict custody at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute. The Appellant became subject to Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, when that Part was introduced into the Code in 1991. The Review Board has granted the Appellant nine conditional discharges, none of which have been successful. In the first eight conditional discharges, the Appellant was returned to the Forensic Psychiatric Institute before his next hearing either because he breached the conditions of his discharge or because the Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services determined that his mental state necessitated a return to custody. On October 1, 2001, while under his ninth conditional discharge, the Appellant pleaded guilty to theft under $5,000. The conviction was a breach of his discharge and a hearing was held before the Review Board on November 1, 2001. The Review Board ordered custody for six months duration and then, on April 3, 2002, it ordered a further four months of custody. In the that order, the Review Board imposed the following conditions upon the Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services:

8. THAT for the accused’s next hearing the Director undertake a comprehensive global review of Mr. Mazzei’s diagnostic formulations, medications and programs with a view to developing an integrated treatment approach which considers the current treatment impasse and the accused’s reluctance to become an active participant in his rehabilitation;

9. THAT for his next hearing the Board be provided with an independent assessment of the accused’s risk to the public in consideration of the above refocused treatment plan;

10. THAT the Director undertake assertive efforts to enroll the accused in a culturally appropriate treatment program; . . .

The Director appealed and the Court of Appeal struck these terms from the custody order on the basis the Review Board had no jurisdiction to impose terms on the Director.