Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Laskin, LaForme and Rouleau JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Helen Tolias
An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code
Counsel: Ken J. Berger, for the appellant Lorna Bolton, for the Attorney General of Ontario Janice E. Blackburn, for the respondent St Joseph’s Health Care, Hamilton
Heard: January 16, 2015
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 11, 2014.
Appeal Book Endorsement
1The appellant was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) in 2005 on account of a mental disorder on four counts of harassing telephone calls, three counts of fail to comply with recognizance and two counts of fail to comply with probation. She was also found NCR in 2006 on one count of criminal harassment. She has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) ever since.
2The most recent disposition of the ORB is dated January 29, 2014. In their reasons, the ORB found that the appellant continued to “present as a significant threat to the safety of the public.” The ORB held that the least onerous, least restrictive disposition was the continuation of the terms of the current detention at the General forensic unit without change. It included the privilege of living in the community in approved accommodation.
3However, due to poor behaviour, risk of elopement, and for refusal to take medication, she is currently restricted to only accompanied hospital grounds privilege.
4She appeals and argues that she is entitled to an absolute discharge because the evidence before the ORB does not support the Board’s findings. Although she concedes mental illness, she maintains that the evidence only establishes a risk of minimal harm, more in the nature of constituting a nuisance.
5We disagree. We find no basis to conclude that the Board’s disposition was unreasonable and not founded on the record before it. The accepted testimony of the treating psychiatrist and the report of the hospital amply supported the Board’s finding.
6This said, however, given the passage of the lengthy period of time and the particular circumstances of the appellant’s condition and behaviour as well as the record that discloses some progress in both her attitude and condition, due consideration ought to be given to commencing integration into the community.
7We observe that her annual review is scheduled for Monday, January 19. We would encourage the Board to explore the possibility of initiating steps in that regard.
8For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no need to deal with the motion to admit fresh evidence.