Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-06-08 Docket: C64494

Judges: Lauwers, Benotto and Miller JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Michael Beam

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel:

• Stephen F. Gehl, for the appellant, Michael Beam
• Logan Crowell, for the respondent, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
• Justin Reid, for the respondent, Attorney General for Ontario

Heard: June 7, 2018

On appeal against: The disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 20, 2017, with reasons dated October 11, 2017.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, in which the Board found the appellant to remain a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered the appellant discharged subject to certain conditions. The appellant argues that the finding that he poses a significant threat to the safety of the public is unreasonable, and seeks an absolute discharge.

[2] For the reasons that follow, we do not agree that the Board's finding was unreasonable and dismiss the appeal.

[3] In 2007, the appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on the charge of assault with a weapon. He had experienced auditory hallucinations telling him his father was a threat to the family, and had advanced on his father with a butcher knife. This was one incident in a pattern of threatening behaviour towards others. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2004, and has also been diagnosed with cannabis use, polysubstance abuse, and narcissistic personality disorders. He has remained under the jurisdiction of the ORB since the index offence.

[4] Since his initial disposition, the appellant has progressed from detention in secure units to a conditional discharge. The terms of the conditional discharge were relaxed in the most recent disposition, to require the appellant to report to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) once a month and submit urine samples for the purpose of determining whether he had ingested drugs. The appellant argues this disposition was in error, as he no longer possesses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

[5] It is common ground that in recent years the appellant has not engaged in violent or threatening behaviour. Earlier incidents of aggressive or abusive conduct (such as in 2009) were not linked directly to psychotic illness. His history of placements in community living have gone well. Although he has been returned to hospital on occasion, it has been because of drug use and never because of threatening or violent behaviour.

[6] The basis for the Board's conclusion that he remains a threat to public safety is this: the Board found that were the appellant to be discharged absolutely, he would likely discontinue his antipsychotic medications, increase his cannabis use, and rapidly decompensate into a psychotic state. This would likely lead to a recurrence of violence similar to the index offence.

[7] The appellant disagrees, and argues that it is speculative to conclude that, were he discharged absolutely, his use of cannabis would increase, leading to decompensation and a recurrence of violence.

[8] However, there is a basis in the evidence for the Board's conclusion. Unlike the appellant in Re Wall, 2017 ONCA 713, the appellant has no insight into his need for medication. He has stated that he believes he does not require antipsychotic medication. He has not committed to continuing to take medication if not required to do so. In the opinion of his treating psychiatrist, it is likely that the appellant would, in the absence of an order, discontinue medication and become psychotic in a short time frame.

[9] The appellant's use of cannabis is an additional complication. The evidence of the treating psychiatrist is that if he discontinues medication, the use of cannabis will accelerate the onset of psychosis. In fact, the evidence is that if the appellant increases his cannabis use to a daily basis, this will be a risk factor for decompensation and psychosis even if he does not discontinue medication. The conclusion that the appellant would likely increase his use of cannabis is supported in the evidence. He has said as much himself, and has a long history of failed drug use tests and is suspected of tampering with drug tests.

Disposition

[10] The appeal is dismissed.

"P. Lauwers J.A."

"M.L. Benotto J.A."

"B.W. Miller J.A."