Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-03-15 Docket: C64560

Judges: Feldman, Watt and Paciocco JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Stacey Mitchell

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code

Counsel

For the appellant Stacey Mitchell: Jessica Zita

For the Attorney General of Ontario: Andrew Cappell

For the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Gavin MacKenzie and Jessica Szabo

Hearing and Decision

Heard and released orally: March 15, 2018

On appeal against: The disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 25, 2017

Reasons for Decision

1The sole issue raised by the appellant is that the Board erred in its disposition of May 25, 2017, following an early request hearing by the Board, by removing the possibility of community living from the appellant's conditions.

2The Board acted on a joint position that the appellant be detained in the secure unit with the potential to go to the general forensic unit but not to the community. During the hearing the appellant changed her position on the community condition.

3Doctor Patel testified that the community living condition be removed following the appellant's incidents of AWOL and some violence towards hospital staff. He did not feel that the community living possibility was a realistic goal for the coming year for the appellant.

4The appellant argues that the hope of possible release to the community should be part of her disposition conditions. However Dr. Patel had testified that it was the frustration of having an apparently unattainable condition that contributed to the appellant's anger and violent acting out as a result.

5In our view, it was entirely reasonable for the Board to accept the recommendation of Dr. Patel, given the appellant's recent acting out, that community living was not a realistic goal for the year and to remove that condition from the disposition.

6The appellant's annual review is scheduled for March 21, 2018, where the issue of community living as a condition of the new disposition can be reassessed by the Board, if a disposition is made and the appellant is still considered a significant threat to the safety of the public.

7For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

K. Feldman J.A.

David Watt J.A.

David M. Paciocco J.A.