Halat (Re), 2016 ONCA 32

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Halat (Re), 2016 ONCA 32 Date: 2016-01-13 Docket: C60107

Before: Cronk, Juriansz and Tulloch JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Derek Halat An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel: Stephen F. Gehl, for the appellant Derek Halat Michael Callaghan, for the respondent Crown Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the respondent Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard and released orally: January 6, 2016

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated February 5, 2015.

Endorsement

1The appellant appeals from the order of the Ontario Review Board dated February 5, 2015 that he be detained on the General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto.

2The appellant came under the Board’s jurisdiction on May 7, 2007, when he was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, assault with a weapon and failure to comply. He was detained until March 31, 2014, when the Board discharged him on conditions and he went to live with his father in Kitchener. In December 2014, the CAMH requested an early review of the disposition. That review resulted in the Board’s disposition that is now under appeal.

3Since his conditional discharge, the appellant has missed many appointments with his treatment team including Dr. Patel and has been hospitalized three times under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7. After the hospitalizations, he left the hospital against medical advice on each occasion. He has used drugs including marijuana, cocaine and benzodiazepines. The Hospital Report indicates that the appellant has become more confrontational and irritable. He has left what the Board characterized as threatening messages to one of his doctors, but he has not overtly threatened violence.

4The appellant has also raised issues of terrorism and radicalization, including comments about KKK groups of white supremacy, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli and anti-Black sentiments. Dr. Patel found it difficult to assess how the appellant was incorporating these ideas into his belief system, in part because of the lack of available supervision for the appellant at his father’s home in Kitchener.

5In the Board’s view, the conditional discharge had proved insufficient to manage the appellant’s risk. The Board was concerned about the appellant’s unstructured lifestyle since moving to Kitchener, his drug use, and his comments about certain minority groups on the contents of a Facebook page. The Board concluded that his current living arrangements in Kitchener had not met his treatment needs, in that they provided for minimal oversight and made it difficult for the treatment team to manage his risk.

6Based on all these factors, the Board found that, at the date of the hearing, the appellant posed a significant risk to the safety of the public. A significant degree of deference is owed to the Board and we have not been persuaded that the Board’s decision is unreasonable.

7We note the appellant’s next annual review is scheduled for January 21, 2016.

8The appeal is dismissed.