ing ▁ped est ri ans ▁with ▁a ▁kn ife ▁and ▁charged ▁with ▁ag gra v ated ▁assault , ▁assault ▁with ▁a ▁weapon , ▁and ▁possession ▁of ▁a ▁weapon ▁for ▁purposes ▁dangerous ▁to ▁the ▁public ▁peace . ▁ ▁At ▁trial ▁he ▁was ▁found ▁" not ▁cr imin ally ▁responsible " ▁and ▁was ▁institution al ized ▁at ▁the ▁For ens ic ▁Psych iat ric ▁Institute . ▁In ▁ 1 9 9 5 , ▁the ▁inst itute ' s ▁review ▁board ▁directed ▁W ink o ▁to ▁be ▁given ▁a ▁conditional ▁dis charge . ▁W ink o ▁appe aled ▁the ▁r uling , ▁asking ▁instead ▁for ▁absolute ▁dis charge . ▁ ▁The ▁issue ▁before ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁was ▁whether ▁section ▁ 6 7 2 . 5 4 ▁of ▁the ▁C riminal ▁Code ▁which ▁granted ▁the ▁review ▁board ▁the ▁power ▁to ▁give ▁dis charg es ▁was ▁a ▁viol ation ▁of ▁section ▁ 7 ▁and ▁ 1 5 ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter . ▁ ▁The ▁majority ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁C riminal ▁Code ▁provision ▁did ▁not ▁viol ate ▁the ▁Char ter . ▁ ▁Op in ion ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁Justice ▁Mc L ach lin , ▁writing ▁for ▁the ▁majority ▁of ▁the ▁Court , ▁dismiss ed ▁the ▁appeal . ▁She ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁provision ▁was ▁not ▁over ly ▁vague , ▁over bro ad , ▁or ▁im posed ▁an ▁impro per ▁on us ▁and ▁so ▁did ▁not ▁viol ate ▁section ▁ 7 ▁of ▁the ▁Char ter . ▁She ▁also ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁provision ▁gave ▁differential ▁treatment ▁based ▁on ▁an