Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Simmons, Lauwers and Nordheimer JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Ralph Peter Boehme
An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code
Counsel: Ralph Boehme in person Erin Dann and Geocelyne Meyers, as amicus curiae Nicholas Hay, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario
Heard: November 16, 2020 by videoconference
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 16, 2019.
Reasons for Decision
1Mr. Boehme appeals from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued the detention order against him. The appellant submits that the Board erred in not granting him an absolute discharge.
2The Board found that the appellant continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It also found that, absent a detention order, the appellant would likely stop his medication, return to substance use, refuse psychiatric care and resume his harassing behaviour leading to the likelihood of serious psychological harm. The Board further found that a conditional discharge would not permit the appellant’s medical team sufficient time to intervene and prevent the appellant from engaging in criminal conduct, if the concerns about him abandoning his medication and returning to substance use materialized.
3The evidence does not provide any foundation for an absolute discharge. All that the appellant offers is the simple passage of time. He says that he has had enough and that all he wants is to get on with his life. We contrast that statement by the appellant with the available evidence which shows that, notwithstanding the passage of time, the appellant still lacks insight into his behaviour, and his mental health issues, and he still poses a significant risk to the safety of the public.
4Amicus advances a separate position and that is that the Board erred in its consideration of a conditional discharge. We do not agree. The Board’s rationale for rejecting a conditional discharge is sound, given the appellant’s current condition and the real concerns that, absent a detention order, the appellant will leave supervised housing, cease to take his medication, resume substance use, and deteriorate. The Board accepted the evidence of the appellant’s medical team that they need to be able to react quickly, if such a deterioration occurs, to mitigate the risk of the appellant contacting the victim, and that a conditional discharge does not provide that immediate response. It was reasonable for the Board to rely on that advice, given the gap in the enforcement of conditional discharges that has been identified on a number of occasions by this court: see, for example, Re Davies, 2019 ONCA 738, at para. 39.
5Amicus also submits that the Board failed to properly inquire into what is submitted to be a treatment impasse. Again, we do not agree. There is little in the record to establish that there is an impasse, as such. That said, the appellant has been under the supervision of the Board since 2011. We are concerned that there has been a lack of real progress in addressing the appellant’s condition since that time. The evidence does show that, at least recently, the appellant’s medical team has been considering alternate diagnoses and other forms of treatment. We would urge the Board to look closely at these efforts at the appellant’s next review (which is to be held shortly) and ensure that adequate steps are being taken to try and advance proper treatment of the appellant’s condition.
6The appeal is dismissed.
“Janet Simmons J.A.”
“P. Lauwers J.A.”
“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”