Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: February 6, 2018 Docket: C63623 Judges: Juriansz, Miller and Fairburn JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Lillian Coburn

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code

Counsel:

• Suzan E. Frazer, for the appellant, Lillian Coburn
• Elena Middelkamp, for the respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario
• Michele Warner, for the respondent, the Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard and released orally: February 2, 2018

On appeal from: the disposition of Ontario Review Board, dated March 28, 2017, with reasons dated April 8, 2017.

Reasons for Decision

[1] At the commencement of the appeal, the appellant provided the court with a letter which we have reviewed.

[2] This is an appeal from the Ontario Review Board's March 28, 2017 dispositions arising from hearings under s. 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

[3] The appellant argues that the Board erred in concluding that she posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, thereby denying her an absolute discharge. We disagree.

[4] The Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to the safety of the public was reasonable and reveals no error in law. Among other things: the Board was entitled to accept Dr. Darby's evidence and the hospital reports, (a) that the appellant showed signs of decompensation in the community; (b) that the appellant had no real insight into either her illness or the seriousness of the index offences; (c) that she refused to accept recommended medication and was on a sub-optimal medication regime; and (d) that she had a paranoid belief system and was unwilling to engage with her treatment team. This evidence provided a sound factual basis upon which the Board could come to the conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat of psychological harm to individuals. The fresh evidence continues to support this conclusion.

[5] The appellant also advances the position that the Board erred in the standard it applied during the restriction of liberty review. The written reasons arising from the restriction of liberty hearing, read together with the disposition, demonstrate the Board's understanding of the relevant test, being a decision that was the least onerous and least restrictive of the appellant in the circumstances.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

R.G. Juriansz J.A. B.W. Miller J.A. Fairburn J.A.