Court of Appeal for Ontario
BEFORE: MOLDAVER, FELDMAN and LANG JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent
and
HELEN TOLIAS Appellant
COUNSEL: Anita Szigeti, Amicus Curia, for the appellant Helen Tolias in Person Maura Jetté, for the respondent
Heard and endorsed: June 26, 2007
On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 1, 2006.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1This was a close call, as evidenced by the split decision of the Board. There was some difficulty on Dr. Johnson’s evidence as to Mrs. Tolias’ condition in the several weeks before the August hearing. As well, we believe that there was some ambiguity in the evidence regarding the difference in privileges and restrictions attaching to minimum as opposed to medium security
2However, when the reasons of the majority are read as a whole, they cannot, in our view, be said to be unreasonable. The minority effectively recognized this, as indicated in their concluding comment, acknowledging “the rationale for the division of opinion in this case, which is very complex and difficult” and respecting “the view of the majority and their more cautious approach”.
3One of the concerns raised by Amicus was that the order of the Board was not sufficiently fine-tuned with respect to Mr. Tolias’ privileges, needs and any progress she might make. While we recognize this concern, we note that the matter is scheduled for a fresh review hearing on Friday of this week. At that hearing, we know that the Board will take these matters into account.
4In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
