Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-06-18 Docket: C65115

Judges: Watt, van Rensburg and Fairburn JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Jesse Russell Jackson

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code

Counsel

For the Appellant, Jesse Jackson: Jill Gamble

For the Attorney General of Ontario: Megan Petrie

For Waypoint Centre: James Thomson

For Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care: Julie Zamprogna

Heard and Released Orally: June 12, 2018

Appeal

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 16, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a number of charges which occurred over a one-week period in September of 2017. Among the offences were break, entry and commit an indictable offence; assault with a weapon, uttering threats; escaping lawful custody, robbery and several counts of breach of probation. The appellant's psychiatric diagnoses are bipolar II disorder and substance abuse disorder.

[2] On February 16, 2018 the Ontario Review Board ordered that the appellant be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London at St. Thomas, with privileges up to and including living within the community in approved accommodation.

[3] At the time of the disposition hearing the appellant was detained at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care. The Board ordered his detention to continue there until his transfer to the Southwest Centre could be accomplished. The interim order of detention at Waypoint included privileges up to and including grounds privileges, but not community living.

[4] The appellant seeks a conditional discharge. He does not challenge the Board's conclusion that he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public within ss. 672.54 and 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. But he contends that on the evidence adduced at the hearing the Board unreasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The Board's reasoning according to the appellant was flawed in two respects:

(i) in assigning undue significance to the risk of illicit drug use and its sequelae including failure to take essential medication, decompensation and further criminality if conditionally discharged; and

(ii) in taking into account the ease with which the appellant could be readmitted on decompensation as a factor in deciding whether to make a detention order or grant a conditional discharge.

[5] In our view, this appeal fails.

[6] Prior decisions of this court establish that the need to supervise a mental disorder detainee's housing, as well as to readily readmit the detainee to hospital on decompensation, are relevant and appropriate considerations for a Board to take into account in deciding on a necessary and appropriate disposition.

[7] In this case there was evidence from the appellant's treating psychiatrist that the ability to approve housing and to expeditiously readmit the appellant to hospital on decompensation were essential tools not only to ensure public safety, but also to facilitate the appellant's recovery.

[8] The appellant has a serious and long-standing substance abuse problem, with few periods of abstinence and little insight about the relationship among substance abuse, mental health and criminality. Resumption of substance abuse is likely to produce rapid decompensation.

[9] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

"David Watt J.A." "K. van Rensburg J.A." "Fairburn J.A."