Grant (Re), 2024 ONCA 736

Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20241004 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0173

Tulloch C.J.O., MacPherson and Monahan JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF: David Grant

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE

Counsel: Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Martin Heslop, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario Julie A. Zamprogna Balles, for the respondent Person in Charge of Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care

Heard: October 3, 2024

On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 15, 2024, with reasons dated January 29, 2024.

Reasons for Decision

[1]

Overview

The appellant appeals from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) dated January 15, 2024, with reasons dated January 29, 2024.

[2]

Background

For 10 years, the appellant stalked, harassed and threatened Dana Thorogood, a woman he had dated for only a few weeks in 1998. The appellant suffered from a delusion that they were fated to be together and that his stepson, Nolan (his ex-wife’s son) was in fact his biological child with Ms. Thorogood. The delusions and stalking behaviour were caused by his bipolar disorder as exacerbated by chronic cannabis use.

3In 2009, following years of persistent harassment, the appellant was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) for the index offences of breach of a peace bond for continuing to contact Ms. Thorogood and criminal harassment for repeatedly harassing his wife with statements, including threats to take his stepson.

4Since 2009, the appellant has been under the jurisdiction of the Board. He continues to have delusions about Ms. Thorogood. He has expressed an intention to contact her if he is discharged. He has consistently demonstrated limited insight about his illness, chronic substance use, and the impact of his potential stalking.

5The appellant has lived in 24/7 supervised community housing for significant periods over the past ten years. He has always required support and, occasionally, prompt hospital intervention to manage his risk.

6At his most recent Board review hearing, the appellant sought an absolute discharge. The Board denied this disposition and continued his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London, with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. The Board also ordered that the appellant “refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect, with Dana Thorogood or her immediate family members” and have “contact with stepson Nolan only with his written revocable consent provided to the person in charge”.

[7]

Analysis

The appellant advances a single argument on this appeal. He submits that the Board incorrectly and unreasonably found that he posed a significant threat to the safety of the public and, accordingly, there should be no change to his current disposition. He also says that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that there is a “foreseeable and substantial risk that the NCR accused will commit a serious criminal offence if discharged absolutely”: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, at para. 69.

8We do not accept this argument. Our analysis starts with what this court said in R. v. Ferguson, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 11:

This court does not decide whether the appellant poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. That is the Review Board’s function and one for which it has special expertise. This court’s responsibility is to decide whether the Review Board’s determination that the appellant poses such a substantial risk to the safety of the public is a reasonable one. In performing that function, the court must recognize the Review Board’s expertise and afford deference to its risk assessments. [Citations omitted.]

9Against this backdrop, we can see no error, or indeed anything unreasonable, in the core of the Board’s reasoning and the disposition flowing from it:

The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Prakash as supported by the Hospital Report and finds that Mr. Grant continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Mr. Grant continues to have positive symptoms of his mental illness and during the year in review has been admitted to the Hospital twice as a result of his daily use of cannabis and its impact on his mental status. Mr. Grant continues to demonstrate a long-standing and consistent fixation on the victim of the index offences. As with last year, he is consistent in his desire to return to Port Dover to contact her and marry her. His delusion is such that he is unable to comprehend that the victim and her family do not want to have contact with him.

In sum, the Board finds that Mr. Grant continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Absent the support and monitoring provided by the Hospital, Mr. Grant would likely fall away from treatment, continue his use of cannabis, which would exacerbate his already fragile mental state, and engage in serious criminal behaviour similar to the index offences.

[10]

Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.