Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, all applicants for permanent residence and some for temporary residence (e.g. visitors, students and workers) undergo a physical and mental examination.[149] Based on this examination, applicants may be refused entry into Canada if they have a physical or mental health condition that is considered likely to be a danger to public health or safety, or that could be very demanding on health or social services.

The aim of this Recommendation is to encourage Member States to strengthen the procedural rights of all suspects or accused persons who are not able to understand and to effectively participate in criminal proceedings due to age, their mental or physical condition or disabilities (‘vulnerable persons’).

Member States must determine whether the content of any particular examination will relate to authorisation to conduct driving tests for one driving licence category, or more than one.

If the intent is to have a salutary effect on the mental state of the victim without seriously interfering with the mental state of the accused, it may not be accomplished or may not be accomplishable in the review board setting (1205) Mr. Kevin Sorenson: There's also other evidence of individuals I'm not sure whether they're just criminals or whether they're those who are insane who have gone back after being accused, after getting out of prison, to the very same victims they committed the atrocious act on and harassing or trying to ...[+++]re-victimize them again, to commit the same thing.

Clause 7(1), in addition to making a stylistic change in the English version, amends s. 672.16 of the Code to ensure that only a court, and not a Review Board, can order that an accused be detained in custody under an assessment order in certain situations. Under s. 672.16(1), these situations are when: (a) custody is necessary to assess the accused, or custody is desirable according to the evidence of a medical practitioner and the accused consents; (b) custody is required due to another matter or provision in the Code; or (c) the prosecutor shows that custody is justified on a ground set out in s. 515(1) of the Code, such as to ensur ...[+++]e the accused’s attendance in court, to protect public safety, or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Clause 7(1), in addition to making a stylistic change in the English version, amends s. 672.16 of the Code to ensure that only a court, and not a Review Board, can order that an accused be detained in custody under an assessment order in certain situations. Under s. 672.16(1), these situations are when: (a) custody is necessary to assess the accused, or custody is desirable according to the evidence of a medical practitioner and the accused consents; (b) custody is required due to another matter or provision in the Code; or (c) the prosecutor shows that custody is justified on a ground set out in s. 515(1) of the Code, such as to ensur ...[+++]e the accused’s attendance in court, to protect public safety, or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.