COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BEFORE: Laskin, Goudge and Hourigan JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: JOANNE JONES
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
COUNSEL: Joanne Jones, appearing in person Anita Szigeti, amicus curiae Lorna Bolton, for the Crown Melanie de Wit, for the Ontario Shores for Mental Sciences
HEARD: April 17, 2014
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, May 16, 2013.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1Ms. Jones asks for an absolute discharge. The Board found that Ms. Jones is a significant risk to the safety of the public. In our view the evidence supports that finding. Accordingly Ms. Jones is not entitled to an absolute discharge.
2Amicus makes two submissions: first the Board did not explain why Ms. Jones should be detained on the secure unit rather than on the general unit; and second the Board did not address why a hybrid order was inappropriate.
3Reading the reasons as a whole, we think it is evident why the Board did not order Ms. Jones be detained on the general unit. They were concerned about her risk of going AWOL, her assaultive behaviour, and the ability to manage her on the general unit. There was evidence to support these concerns and therefore we are not persuaded that the Board’s disposition was unreasonable.
4Although the Board did not address the possibility of a hybrid order in its reasons, we expect the Board did not make such an order because it wanted to maintain oversight over Ms. Jones. That was a reasonable position for the Board to take.
5Finally we note that Ms. Jones’ annual review is imminent. The Board will therefore have the advantage of an updated medical and risk assessment for Ms. Jones.
6The appeal is dismissed.