Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-07-24 Docket: C65075

Judges: Hoy A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Pardu JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Christopher Honsinger

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel

For the Appellant: Robert F. Goddard

For the Respondent Crown: Erica Whitford

For the Person in Charge, Brockville Mental Health Centre: Marie-Pierre Pilon

Hearing and Release

Heard and Released Orally: July 19, 2018

On Appeal Against: The disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated November 15, 2017.

Reasons for Decision

1Mr. Honsinger appeals against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated November 9, 2017, continuing his detention at the Brockville Mental Health Centre. He seeks an absolute discharge. Before us, he did not pursue his argument that he seeks a conditional discharge.

2Mr. Honsinger is 23 years of age. The index offences occurred in July 2014. On September 29, 2014, Mr. Honsinger was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, two charges of mischief – not exceeding $5000 – and two charges of uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm. The initial psychiatric diagnosis was that Mr. Honsinger was experiencing an acute psychotic episode that was part of schizophrenia at the time of the index offences.

3Counsel for Mr. Honsinger argues that the Board's conclusion that Mr. Honsinger is a "significant threat to the safety of the public" was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. In particular, he argues that neither Mr. Honsinger's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Gray, nor the Board properly considered how the change in his diagnosis from schizophrenia to anti-social personality disorder, cannabis use, and borderline intellectual functioning impacted the risk assessment. He says Dr. Gray and the Board did not appreciate the distinction between schizophrenia and cannabis induced psychosis. Instead, they assumed the threat was equivalent. Moreover, he argues, the purported link between Mr. Honsinger's cannabis use and psychosis does not bear scrutiny.

4We reject these arguments.

5The expert evidence was alive to the change in Mr. Honsinger's diagnosis. The Board could find that the appellant posed a significant threat based on the revised diagnosis. Dr. Gray's evidence links Mr. Honsinger's cannabis use to the psychotic symptoms he experienced when he committed the index offences. The record also disclosed a long-standing inability to abstain from substance use; a history of aggressive, threatening and violent behavior, some of which was recent; and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. On this record, the Board's conclusion that Mr. Honsinger posed a significant threat was reasonable.

6Counsel for Mr. Honsinger also questions whether Mr. Honsinger in fact experienced a psychotic episode at the time he committed the index offences. However, this position was not put to Dr. Gray when he testified. Dr. Gray testified that he believed the index offence was an incident of drug-induced psychosis, and all indications in the record before us are that Mr. Honsinger experienced a psychotic episode at the time of the index offences.

7Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.

K.M. van Rensburg J.A.

G. Pardu J.A.