Supreme Court rules freedom of grounds "reasonable" for inmate.

OTTAWA -- The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Ontario Review Board met the test of "reasonableness" when in 2000 it moved Pertti Tulikorpi from a maximum security facility to a medium security facility that allowed him more freedom by giving him hospital and grounds privileges when accompanied by staff.

In 1991 Tulikorpi, who was found not criminally responsible for an assault with a weapon by reason of a mental disorder, was committed to a medium security facility and then in 1993 the Ontario Review Board moved him to a maximum security facility. In 2000 the Board once again transferred him to a medium security facility.

The Review Board's decision to transfer Tulikorpi to a medium security facility in 2000 was appealed by the Ontario government to the Ontario Court of Appeal, whereby the Court referred the matter to the Review Board for a rehearing saying that the requirement in the Criminal Code of "the least onerous and restrictive" only applied to choosing among three outcomes--an absolute discharge, discharge subject to conditions or detention in a hospital subject to conditions.

The Appeal Court's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court by Tulikorpi where the Court allowed him his appeal, and ruled the Appeal Court was wrong in its view of applying the "least onerous and least restrictive" requirement only to the three potential outcomes. Instead, the Supreme Court said the Review Board also had to consider every step of the way the "need to protect the public from dangerous person, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused," which the Review Board did in its 2000 decision.