COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MacPherson, MacFarland and LaForme JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: MAURICIO ANTONIO DELGADO-CRUZ
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
Dean Embry, for the appellant
Eric Siebenmorgen, for the Crown
Kathryn Hunt, for the Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Heard: April 6, 2016
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 20, 2015.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant, Mauricio Antonio Delgado-Cruz, appeals from the decision of the Ontario Review Board dated 20 July 2015 ordering that he remain under a conditional discharge. The conditions in the discharge were substantially reduced from those in the 2014 Order. The conditions in the 2015 Order are:
(a) Reside at 100 Lower Ossington, Toronto;
(b) Report to the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto or his or her designate, not less than once every two weeks;
(c) Refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;
(d) Upon notice, attend before the Ontario Review Board as required; and
(e) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
2The appellant seeks an absolute discharge and submits that in failing to grant it to him, the Board made an unreasonable decision not supported by the evidence. The appellant advances two arguments in support of this position.
3First, the appellant asserts that there was no positive evidence on which the Board could have made a finding that he continues to pose a significant risk to the public.
4We do not accept this submission. The unanimous decision of the Board was principally based on the opinion of the appellant’s treating physician, Dr. V. Duff, who was of the opinion that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk. Dr. Duff was concerned that, if granted an absolute discharge, the appellant would discontinue his medication. She testified that if this occurs and the appellant “becomes ill, there is no question that he will also become dangerous.” Since the appellant’s medication regime had recently been changed, Dr. Duff thought it advisable to monitor it under a conditional discharge order, at least for one more year. We cannot say that the Board’s decision to accept this opinion was unreasonable.
5Second, the appellant contends that the Board’s disposition was not necessary and appropriate and, specifically, did not sufficiently take account of the appellant’s liberty interest.
6We are not persuaded by this submission. The Board was alive to the appellant’s encouraging improvements and responded to them by deleting several restrictions on the appellant’s liberty, including non-medical use of alcohol or drugs and submitting urine samples to CAMH.
7In the end, the Board recorded and accepted Dr. Duff’s advice: “Before making any significant changes to the current Disposition, Dr. Duff feels that Mr. Delgado-Cruz needs to have another good year under his belt.” We cannot say that this is unreasonable. We also observe that in this passage, and in another portion of its reasons, the Board made it clear that, if the appellant has another good year under the current conditional discharge order, the possibility of an absolute discharge order is very much in the cards for the 2016 hearing which is now scheduled for May 16, 2016.
8The appeal is dismissed.
“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”
“J. MacFarland J.A.”
“H.S. LaForme J.A.”