COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Watters (Re), 2026 ONCA 595
DATE: 20260820
DOCKET: COA-25-CR-1510
Coroza, Favreau and Pomerance JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Blake Watters
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46
David Shannon, for the appellant
Erica Whitford, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario
Paige Miltenburg, for the respondent Person in Charge of the Brockville Mental Health Centre
Heard and rendered orally: August 13, 2026
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated September 2, 2025, with reasons dated October 14, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is an appeal from the appellant’s latest Ontario Review Board disposition, dated September 2, 2025.
[2] At the hearing, the appellant initially sought an absolute discharge. At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel for the appellant conceded there was an ongoing presence of significant risk to safety and he requested a conditional discharge.
[3] Ultimately, the Board continued the same disposition that had been previously imposed, one of a detention order.
[4] The appellant’s next Review Board hearing is scheduled for August 31, 2026.
[5] We start by noting the considerable deference owed to the expert Board’s decision. The standard of review is reasonableness.
[6] When assessing the reasonableness of a decision, the issue is whether the Board’s reasoning process and the outcome it reached reflect an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis […] that is justified in relation to the facts and law”: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 85.
[7] The appellant raises two grounds of appeal.
[8] First, in his written materials, the appellant says the Board’s reasons are deficient because they do not demonstrate a proper application of the statutory test for significant threat as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
[9] We disagree. The Board outlined the factors that supported its finding that the appellant remained an ongoing significant threat. Those factors included evidence from the appellant’s treating psychiatrist that the appellant presented the same degree of risk to public safety as he did at the time of the index offences, the appellant’s refusal to take any psychotropic medications to address the appellant’s delusional beliefs and the joint position of the parties that the appellant remained a significant threat to the safety of the public.
[10] Second, the appellant says that the Board did not properly consider or explain why a detention order was the least onerous and restrictive disposition. Essentially, counsel for the appellant advances a sufficiency of reasons argument.
[11] Again, we are not persuaded by this submission. The determination that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to ensure the safety of the public was based upon, among other things, the appellant’s refusal to be treated with medication so that he could meaningfully engage in programming. Here, the Board quite properly focused on the appellant’s resistance to treatment medication to address his delusional disorder and concluded that until the appellant’s symptoms can be stabilized, an expansion of community privileges by way of a conditional discharge was not warranted. That conclusion was open for the Board to make, and we are satisfied the reasons of the Board are sufficient.
[12] In sum, the Board’s reasoning process and outcome in this case reflects an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and the law.
[13] The appeal is dismissed.
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”