Court of Appeal for Ontario
BEFORE: Feldman, Pardu and Brown JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Luke Armstrong
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
COUNSEL: Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Melanie de Wit, for the respondent, Person in Charge of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences Frank Au, for the respondent, Attorney General for Ontario
Heard and released orally: April 30, 2015
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, June 27, 2014.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant appeals the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, on the basis that its decision not to transfer him to the General Unit, from the Medium Secure Unit, was unreasonable when he had no violent incidents and had made some progress over the past year. He also submits that the Board erred in finding that he had refused treatment and had made no progress.
2In our view, based on the record before the Board and the evidence at the hearing, the Board’s findings were reasonable and based on the evidence. We see no basis to interfere. For example, the evidence was that the appellant attended programs but refused to cooperate, so was removed from them. The Board characterized that as the appellant refusing to attend programs. In our view, that was a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.
3The other issue raised is whether the Board failed to recognize a treatment impasse. In our view, it did not. As discussed by counsel before us, the appellant is not receiving treatment but is still demonstrating delusions and inappropriate behaviour, and is not able to progress through the system to a less restrictive situation. The appellant asks, in the alternative, for an independent assessment on the basis of a treatment impasse. The Crown submits in response that in its reasons, the Board recognized the possibility of progress if the appellant were to consent to medication and that his father had agreed to try to assist in that regard.
4We note that the next annual review is to be held in June 2015. At that time the Board will assess whether the appellant has made progress, whether the diagnosis needs to be revisited, and whether there is an impasse that merits an independent assessment.
5We note that it is positive that the court was told that the appellant has been able to successfully take advantage of the six-hour passes in the community, with his father, that were granted in the last disposition.
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“G. Pardu J.A.”
"David Brown J.A."