COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Weiler, Simmons and Epstein JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: John Millard
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
Thomas Whillier, for the appellant
Barbara Walker-Renshaw, for Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Davin M. Garg, for the Attorney General of Ontario
Heard: April 27, 2016
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 10, 2015.
ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant appeals from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board following a restriction of liberty hearing, directing that he be detained at the Ontario Shores Mental Health facility. Prior to this disposition, the appellant was subject to a conditional discharge. The appellant was returned to Ontario Shores after being arrested and charged with criminal harassment. The charge was resolved by a peace bond prior to the restriction of liberty hearing and the appellant denied the substance of the complainant’s allegations.
2We reject the appellant’s submission that the Board’s finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public was unreasonable. Having regard to the appellant’s diagnosis (psychotic disorder), the circumstances of the index offences (two counts of uttering death threats), the appellant’s lack of insight into his illness, his negative interaction with members of the Outpatient Forensic team in the preceding reporting year and the psychiatric evidence, we are satisfied there was evidence to support that finding.
3Similarly, we are not persuaded that the Board materially misapprehended the evidence or that the change of disposition from a conditional discharge to a detention order was unreasonable. The appellant’s brother had sold the house the appellant had been living in and the appellant had been unable to confirm that continued accommodation at that house would be available to him. Further, the appellant provided no firm evidence of employment prospects. There was evidence before the Board that financial stresses could contribute to a relapse. Due to the recent incident with the Outpatient Forensic team and the undisputed aspects of the incidents that led to the subsequently resolved criminal harassment charge, the concerns about the appellant’s condition deteriorating were not unreasonable. In these circumstances, the Board’s conclusion that a detention order was required so that the Board could approve the appellant’s housing was not unreasonable.
4We would anticipate, however, that the Board will make careful inquiries into the appellant’s housing status and employment prospects at his upcoming annual hearing scheduled for July 2016.
5The appeal is therefore dismissed.
“K.M. Weiler J.A.”
“Janet Simmons J.A.”
“Gloria Epstein J.A.”