COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Sharpe, Pepall and Tulloch JJ.A.
In the Matter of Nelson Runnalls
An Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Code
Counsel:
Michael Davies as amicus curiae
G. Choi, for the Crown
Janice Blackburn, for the person in charge North Bay Regional Health Centre
Heard: April 1, 2014
On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated July 9, 2013.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant appeals the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 9, 2013 ordering his continued detention at the General Forensic Unit of the North Bay Regional Health Centre with provision for certain privileges, including that he be permitted to live in the community in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge of the Hospital.
2The appellant argues that the Board erred by refusing his request for the disclosure of certain material pertaining to the court proceedings leading to his NCR designation.
3The Board properly rejected the appellant’s request for production. As the Chair of the Board ruled, the ORB has no jurisdiction to entertain the submission that there was some procedural unfairness or denial of the right to make full answer and defence at the NCR hearing.
4The appellant also argues that the Board erred by failing to order his absolute discharge. Amicus suggests that a conditional discharge with a term prohibiting the appellant from living with his girlfriend was the least restrictive disposition and that the Board erred in failing to make that disposition.
5In our view, it was not unreasonable for the Board to refuse any form of discharge and the Board did not err in law in its disposition.
6There was evidence to support the Board’s finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant risk to the community.
7We do not agree with the submission of amicus that the sole reason offered by the Board for maintaining this disposition and refusing a conditional discharge was the concern that the appellant would move in with his girlfriend. The Board found that the current stability achieved by the appellant was the result of the boundaries set by the hospital, including the requirement that he comply with his medication regime and abstain from alcohol and drugs. There was evidence before the Board indicating a concern on the part of the treatment team that if the appellant were permitted to live wherever he wanted, there was a serious risk that he would discontinue his medications and return to his earlier pattern of substance abuse. Those concerns were in addition to the concern as to the suitability of the appellant living with his girlfriend.
8In our view, this provided a reasonable basis for maintaining the disposition that would permit the Hospital to approve the appellant’s accommodation. As has been held in two previous decisions of this court involving this appellant, giving the Board the power to require the hospital’s approval of accommodation is only possible under a detention order: see Re Runnals, 2012 ONCA 295; 2013 ONCA 386.
9Finally, it is important to note that the appellant has succeeded in living in the community in the independent accommodation approved by the hospital and that he enjoys considerable freedom in that regard. He is also able to visit his family on Manitoulin Island. It is also encouraging that the treatment team is aware of the appellant’s wish to live with his girlfriend and that they have been engaged in identifying circumstances in which this might prove possible in the future.
10We commend the appellant for the progress he has made and we encourage the treatment team to continue in its efforts to work towards the appellant’s full reintegration into the community if and when that is possible.
11As we are satisfied that the Board’s disposition was both reasonable and consistent with a need to achieve a disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive, this appeal is dismissed.
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“S.E. Pepall J.A.”
“M.H. Tulloch J.A.”