Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Simmons, Blair and Hoy JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Ved Dhingra
Counsel: Ved Dhingra, appearing in person Anita Szigeti, as amicus curiae Scott Latimer, for the Attorney General
Heard: December 14, 2011
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated May 6, 2011.
Endorsement
1The appellant, Mr. Dhingra, was found not criminally responsible on a charge of murder. As a result, he came under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. He appeals the Board’s decision dated May 6, 2011, ordering that he be detained within the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), with community living privileges.
2Mr. Dhingra submits that he should have been granted the travel privilege to India that he sought and discharged conditionally, as opposed to remaining subject to a detention order.
3Pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, it was open to the Board to order that Mr. Dhingra be discharged absolutely, discharged subject to conditions or detained in custody in a hospital, subject to conditions. That section required the Board to, in making its decision, take into consideration the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused, and to make the disposition that was the least onerous and least restrictive to the accused.
4The court may set aside the Board’s order if it is of the opinion that: (1) the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence; (2) the decision is based on an error of law; or (3) there was a miscarriage of justice.
5In our view, there is no basis to intervene. The Board’s reasons, coupled with the questions posed during the hearing and in the course of submissions, sufficiently demonstrate that the Board was aware of and applied the relevant legal considerations.
6It was conceded that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety. The Board found that this threat could only be managed with a detention order based on evidence of (1) the real possibility of relapse, given the stress-related variables in the appellant’s life at the time of the hearing, and (2) the advantage of a detention order, over a conditional discharge, in facilitating hospital re-admittance if these stressors (or other issues) caused the appellant’s mental health to decompensate.
7The appellant wished to go on an up to three-week trip to India. The Board’s decision to deny the appellant travel privileges to India was reasonable. The appellant was receiving medication by injection every two weeks. A switch to oral medication to facilitate travel was concerning, given the appellant’s history of failure to take his medication prior to the index offence, particularly when travelling to India, and the more rapid decompensation that follows from failure to take oral medication. The Board adopted an incremental approach to travel, permitting the appellant to travel to Nova Scotia for a shorter period.
8The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
9When the Board next reviews Mr. Dhingra’s disposition, it may wish to consider, and specifically address in its reasons, whether the threat to public safety can be managed with a conditional discharge, which includes as a condition that Mr. Dhingra continue to receive medication by injection. While in the course of the proceeding before the Board, Mr. Dhingra had indicated a preference to revert to oral medication, he indicated to this court that he is now ambivalent as to form in which his medication is administered.
“Janet Simmons J.A.”
“R.A. Blair J.A.”
“Alexandra Hoy J.A.”