COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Feldman and Brown JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: RICHARD DEJONG
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
Anita Szigeti and Michael B. Schloss, for the appellant
Nicolas de Montigny, for the respondent His Majesty the King
Julia L. Lefebvre, for the respondent Person in Charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Heard and released orally: February 27, 2023
On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated May 19, 2022, with reasons dated June 14, 2022.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant submits that the reasons of the Board are inadequate and fail to contain any analysis of the relevant evidence, or any explanation for the Board’s conclusions, or the order made by the Board. The adequacy of reasons must be considered, having regard to the entirety of the record, the specific issues raised, and the arguments made: R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, 459 D.L.R. (4th) 375, at para. 69. Viewed from that perspective, the Board’s reasons, while no doubt brief, are adequate.
2Counsel for the appellant referred to certain specific evidence, which he submits the Board failed to consider in arriving at their disposition. He contends that the failure to do so denied the appellant his right to be heard. Counsel submits that the Board did not adequately consider the evidence relating to the appellant’s ADHD diagnosis and its potential impact on the appellant’s treatment course.
3The ADHD diagnosis was apparently a relatively recent one. The Board’s reasons, at para. 20, appreciated the substance of this evidence. Indeed, this evidence was central to the position taken by the Hospital, which the Board accepted in the order it made. The Hospital’s position was that the existing detention order had to be continued with the prospect of some significant reduction in the restriction on the appellant’s liberty if the medication in relation to the ADHD had the results hoped for by the Hospital. That medication unfortunately could not be given to the appellant until his condition was adequately stabilized. His treating doctor thought this could take at least a few months. Far from ignoring the evidence about the appellant’s ADHD and its possible effect on his treatment, that evidence was integral to the Board’s acceptance of the Hospital’s position.
4Counsel for the appellant also submits that the Board failed to consider parts of Mr. DeJong’s evidence. Mr. DeJong testified about his feelings of hopelessness and the sexual abuse he had suffered as a child. Mr. DeJong was, in fact, abused as a child.
5The Board did not specifically refer to the evidence of Mr. DeJong’s hopelessness or his prior sexual abuse. That evidence, however, had no material bearing on the order to be made in the circumstances of this case. Mr. DeJong’s legitimate feelings of hopelessness and his prior sexual abuse did not, in our view, diminish the need or justification for the order made by the Board.
6The appeal is dismissed.
“Doherty J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“David Brown J.A.”