R. v. CONWAY - British Columbia Review Board

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), a medium security facility. The Board
observed that although Mr. Conway was “unconvinced that he suffers from a mental illness” and
was “uncured”, his treatment required that he have hope of eventually being integrated into the
community.
[12] Prior to his annual review hearing in 2006, Mr. Conway sent a Notice of
Constitutional Question to the Board, CAMH, and the Attorneys General of Ontario and Canada,
alleging breaches of ss. 2(b), 2(d), 7, 8, 9, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter. He listed the following
grounds as the basis of the claim that his constitutional rights had been violated and that he was
therefore entitled to an absolute discharge under s. 24(1):
Mr. Conway states that there is little regard for the living conditions under which
he is detained and that these factors have a negative impact on his mental and physical
health. These conditions include:
a. Construction noise, fumes and dust associated with the renovation of the unit
directly below him which affect his peace, tranquillity and convalescence;
b. Failure to respect his rights, individuality, and expressions of same;
c. Interruptions by staff of his telephone calls and unnecessary and improper
implementation of call restrictions including when he is speaking with legal
counsel;
d. Unfair treatment by staff which manifests in differential treatment towards him
compared with other NCR accused individuals detained on the unit; and
e. Failure to provide for his needs and advocacy for his expressed needs;