Court of Appeal for Ontario
BEFORE: Doherty, Rouleau and Pepall JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM FERNANDEZ
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
COUNSEL:
Paul Burstein, appearing for the appellant as amicus curiae
A. Menchynski, appearing for the Crown
B. Walker-Renshaw, appearing for the Person in Charge, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
HEARD: September 27, 2013
On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, January 3, 2013.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1This is a close case. The reasons of both the majority and the dissent are clear and cogent.
2We do not agree with Mr. Burstein’s able submission that the majority misapprehended Dr. Hill’s evidence. His evidence, considered in its totality, was properly reflected in the majority’s reasons.
3As there is no misapprehension of the evidence, the appeal turns on the reasonableness of the decision.
4Bearing in mind the deference owed to the Board’s analysis of the evidence (see pp. 7-8 of the reasons), we see no basis upon which to interfere with the majority’s decision.
5The appeal is dismissed.