Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2017-05-01 Docket: C62628
Judges: Weiler, Feldman and Huscroft JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Professor Starson
An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code
Amici Curiae: Anita Szigeti and Joseph Berger
Counsel:
- Katie Doherty, for the respondent
- Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the Person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Heard and released orally: April 28, 2017
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 29, 2016.
Appeal Book Endorsement
1The appellant appeals the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) pursuant to which he was ordered detained on a General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), with the ability to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of CAMH.
2The Board's decision not to grant an absolute discharge was reasonable. Given the clear evidence that the appellant would stop taking his medication, that he would decompensate very quickly and engage in threatening and aggressive behaviour that could cause serious psychological harm, an absolute discharge was not an appropriate disposition.
3The amicus submits that a conditional discharge as opposed to a detention order is the least restrictive order the Board should have made. What Dr. Pearce was concerned about, and what the Board was concerned about, was that the Appellant could not live in the apartment in which he had been living pursuant to a conditional discharge order which required him to live at that location. The appellant had only voluntarily been living at CAMH for two days at the time the Board made its order. If he left, he would be homeless. The Board was concerned about the risk the appellant would pose if he was on the street. The fresh evidence admitted at this hearing is indicative that the appellant continues to issue threats and that there is a risk of serious psychological, if not physical, harm. In the circumstances, the Board's decision to impose a detention order with the possibility of community living was reasonable. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.