COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Laskin and Tulloch JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Geoffrey Le Feuvre
An Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Code
Geoffrey Le Feuvre, appearing in person
Ken Berger, for the appellant
Greg Skerkowski, for the respondent Crown
Kathryn Hunt, for the Person in Charge of the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction
Heard and released orally: November 13, 2015
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, January 30, 2015.
ENDORSEMENT
1Geoffrey Le Feuvre appeals an order of the Ontario Review Board dated January 30, 2015 transferring him from the general forensic unit of CAMH to the secure forensic unit. He submits that the Board’s decision was unreasonable and was largely based on the appellant’s repeated violation of the Hospital’s anti-smoking policy – a violation that had nothing to do with his risk to public safety. He asks that we reinstate his detention on the general forensic unit.
2The background to this appeal is as follows. The appellant was found NCR by reason of mental disorder in 2007 for a series of attacks on strangers and related damage to property. He has been diagnosed as suffering from bipolar disorder, anti-personality traits and substance dependence. He is now 63 years old. He accepts that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore his continued detention is justified. The focus of this appeal is on the conditions of his detention.
3Since coming under the jurisdiction of the Board in 2007, and up until his last hearing this past January, the appellant had been detained on the general forensic unit of the Hospital with privileges that included indirectly supervised passes and the possibility of living in the community in accommodation approved by the Hospital. At his last hearing however, the Hospital recommended that the appellant be transferred to the secure unit. Its recommendation was supported by the evidence of Dr. Iosef.
4The basis of the Hospital’s recommendation was that because the appellant repeatedly breached the Hospital’s anti-smoking policy and because he had smoked crack cocaine on the unit in August 2014, he can no longer be trusted with indirectly supervised passes. His use of those passes was thus suspended. Without indirectly supervised passes his detention on the general unit had become restrictive. He could use passes only when staff were available and the Hospital has limited staff on the general unit. His detention on the general unit therefore prevented him from continuously attending off-unit programs, especially the substance relapse prevention program, which he acknowledges he needs, indeed has requested, and has benefitted from.
5By contrast, on the secure unit more staff is available and the appellant would be better able to attend off-unit programs. Also, he would be able to attend on-site substance relapse prevention programs, which are not available on the general forensic unit.
6The Board accepted the Hospital’s recommendation but made what is known as a hybrid order, that is the appellant was ordered to be transferred to the secure unit, but the Hospital was given discretion to transfer him back to the general unit if warranted by his clinical condition. In ordering the appellant’s transfer to the secure unit, the Board accepted that the appellant did not pose an increased risk to public safety. The essence of why it ordered the transfer is contained in the following paragraph of its reasons:
And yet the reality is that Mr. Le Feuvre remains on the general forensic unit not being given any indirectly supervised passes for the foreseeable future. As a result, he is unable to engage in ongoing substance abuse programming which he needs due to staffing issues. Mr. Le Feuvre has spent seven years on the general forensic unit without the ability to move forward, due to his behaviour. The present situation is not conducive to his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community, which are factors for our consideration as set out in s. 672.54.
7In determining a condition of an accused’s detention under s. 672.54(c) of the Criminal Code, the Board must make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate, and that takes into account the reintegration of the accused into society. In our view, the Board’s disposition met these requirements and therefore is reasonable. The Board found that, in reality, despite the units’ names, the appellant’s detention on the secure unit would be less onerous and less restrictive and would enhance his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It would better enable him to access the therapeutic programming and counselling that he needs.
8As we defer to the Board’s disposition, the appeal is dismissed.
“Doherty J.A.”
“John Laskin J.A.”
“M. Tulloch J.A.”