COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Strathy C.J.O., Gillese and Pardu JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Denis Quenneville
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
Sukhpreet Sangha, for the appellant
John Patton, for the Attorney General of Ontario
Janice Blackburn, for the person in charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Heard: April 21, 2016
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 28, 2015.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant argues that the decision of the Ontario Review Board that he continue to be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care was unreasonable. He submits that the opinion of his treating physician that he had made progress in the recent year, and that he would benefit from a less secure environment should have been accepted by the Board. He would like to be transferred to either the Brockville Mental Health Centre or the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, so that he can be closer to his family, and so that he can enjoy some easing of the restrictions associated with Waypoint. The appellant had spent time at the Brockville facility in the past.
2Dr. Ahmed, member of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, opposed the transfer. He reviewed the hospital report filed in this matter and took the position that the appellant’s risk “continues to be at a level higher than can be safely managed” at those facilities. He did not consider that the appellant had made any significant progress and was concerned that as a result of a program of major renovation, there was a reduction of beds available for admission.
3There was no dispute that the appellant remained a significant threat, and no dispute that continued hospitalization was required.
4The Board noted in its reasons, “While the Board commends Mr. Quenneville for his progress during the review period, we find that a transfer to a less secure institution is premature given Mr. Quenneville’s ongoing threatening and sexually inappropriate behaviour as documented in the Hospital Report”. That report discloses that the appellant continued to make threats to kill, torture, rape and injure other persons. His last violent outburst occurred in June 2014 when he threw a 70 pound chair in his room which broke off a door handle.
5The reasons of the Board are adequate, clearly explaining why it came to the conclusions it did.
6The appellant was making some progress at Waypoint with the benefit of Dialectical Behavioural Therapy. There was some question whether the same kind of treatment would be available to him at the other institutions.
7The Board’s decision is owed deference. As recently observed by this court in Hart (Re), 2016 ONCA 277:
The standard of review of a disposition or placement decision of the Board is set out in s. 672.78(1) of the Criminal Code, and its application was explained in R. v Owen, 2003 SCC 33, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779, at paras. 31-37. This court can only set aside an order of the Board where it is of the opinion that:
the decision is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence; or
the decision is based on a wrong decision on a question of law; or
there was a miscarriage of justice.
8The conclusion that it was premature to transfer the appellant to a less secure setting was reasonable and supported by the evidence. It was open to the Board to accept the evidence favouring continued detention at Waypoint rather than the evidence of the treating physician advocating a transfer. There is no basis for this court to intervene. The appeal is dismissed.
“G.R. Strathy C.J.O.”
“E.E. Gillese J.A.”
“G. Pardu J.A.”