Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Weiler, Sharpe and Blair JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Gregorios Laberakis
Counsel: Gregorios Laberakis, acting in person Anita Szigeti and Jill Presser, as amicus curiae Jean D. Buie, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Leslie Paine, for the Attorney General
Heard and released orally: January 30, 2012
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, February 22, 2011.
Endorsement
1The appellant appeals the Ontario Review Board’s disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a Conditional Discharge.
2We are of the opinion that the majority decision of the Board contains serious errors of law. There was no positive evidence on which the Board could have found that Mr. Laberakis continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The index offences, although very serious, occurred in 2001; the appellant has been living in the community for almost five years now; there is no evidence of non-adherence to medication; he has strong community support; the treatment team and the hospital support the disposition of an absolute discharge. There is no factual basis to support a finding that the appellant poses significant threat to the community.
3The majority failed to apply the appropriate threshold of risk. Risk assessment tests indicate that the appellant poses a low risk to the community. The Board was concerned with the appellant’s internalization of the events surrounding the offences and further opined that it could not be said the appellant would seek help if needed. Dr. Eayres testified that the appellant was not absolutely certain that he would become ill again if he were to discontinue taking his medication. There are limitations on the appellant’s insight into his condition. That said, Dr. Eayres testified that the appellant agreed that it was important to stay on the medication in order to avoid returning to the same state of mind that produced the terrible events. Dr. Eayres was of the opinion he would continue taking his medication and supported an absolute discharge. There was no expert opinion to the contrary. While the Board does not necessarily err because it declines to follow the expert’s or the hospital’s opinion and must make its own decision, it must do so on the evidence. The majority’s concerns in effect placed an inappropriate burden on the appellant.
4For these reasons, we would allow the appeal, set aside the Board’s order and in its place grant the appellant an absolute discharge.
“Karen M. Weiler J.A.”
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“R.A. Blair J.A.”