Court of Appeal for Ontario
BEFORE: Weiler, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Helen Tolias
Appellant
COUNSEL:
Helen Tolias, acting in person
Paul Burstein, as amicus curiae
Grace Choi, for the respondent
Anna L. Marrison, for Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Heard: April 7, 2010
On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 30, 2009.
ENDORSEMENT
1There are no genuine issues that are raised on this appeal. The Court of Appeal may only set aside a decision of the ORB if it finds that (a) the decision is unreasonable; (b) the decision is based on a wrong decision on a question of law; or (c) there was a miscarriage of justice. In this case, Ms. Tolias has not identified any legal error. The question of whether she engaged in the conduct underlying the index offences is not the subject matter of this appeal. Further, the ORB’s conclusion is not unreasonable. The ORB’s conclusions are supported by its reasons, which are grounded in logic as well as evidence provided by the Hospital. Specifically, the Board’s finding that Ms. Tolias was a “significant threat” falls squarely within its realm of expertise and is entitled to deference. There has been no miscarriage of justice.
2After the July 30th disposition Ms. Tolias was transferred to the current site in accordance with her wish to be transferred if a discharge is not suitable. The question she raises, namely, whether it would be appropriate to order an assessment at KMH as an outpatient is open to her to raise at her annual review.
3Accordingly, her appeal is dismissed.
“K.M. Weiler J.A.”
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“Janet Simmons J.A.”