Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2019-06-11 Docket: C66283
Judges: Feldman, van Rensburg and Huscroft JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Deron Strachan
An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code
Counsel:
- Anita Szigeti, for the appellant, Deron Strachan
- Gerald Brienza, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen
- Kathryn Hunt, for the Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Heard: June 7, 2019
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 15, 2018.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Background
The appellant appeals from the November 15, 2018 Ontario Review Board ("the Board") disposition ordering his detention pursuant to a hybrid order, which allows him to transition from a secure forensic unit to a general forensic unit, with the privilege of community living as appropriate.
2The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder ("NCR") on April 2, 2013 for a number of offences including sexual assault. He suffers from schizophrenia and experiences a range of symptoms including paranoid delusions.
3The appellant was on a conditional discharge from May 31, 2016 to November 15, 2018, but was admitted to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ("CAMH") pursuant to Form 1 under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, after he missed the monthly injection of his medication. He was detained in the hospital on a Form 3 until his release on October 18, 2018. Subsequently, he decompensated rapidly and on October 22, 2018 was returned to hospital on a Form 1. He was held on a Form 3 and then a Form 4.
4On October 18, 2018, the hospital requested an early hearing to review the appellant's disposition. The Board concluded that the appellant continues to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public and that a hybrid order was appropriate.
[5]
Analysis
The appellant submits that the Board's decision not to order a conditional discharge was unreasonable, describing his failure to take his medication and his actions as an aberration and highlighting his prior conditional discharge dispositions.
6We disagree.
7The appellant was returned to his conditional discharge following his first discharge from the hospital but decompensated quickly. He demonstrated paranoid, aggressive, and threatening behaviour. He was agitated, swore at staff, and damaged furniture at the LOFT residence where he used to live. His behaviour required not only his return to the hospital, but also his seclusion on three occasions while he was hospitalized because of the risk that he posed to others.
8The Board considered whether a conditional discharge was appropriate, given the ability of the appellant to be returned to hospital under the Mental Health Act. It concluded, in essence, that there was no air of reality to a conditional discharge order. This conclusion is well supported in the record. The appellant was simply not in a position to be in the community at the time of the hearing.
9The Board's conclusion that a hybrid order was appropriate and that secure detention was required until the appellant was sufficiently stabilized to move to a general detention order was reasonable, and there is no basis for this court to interfere with it.
[10]
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed.
"K. Feldman J.A."
"K. van Rensburg J.A."
"Grant Huscroft J.A."