Edda Esposito, 2018 ONCA 780

Case Summary

An appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 17, 2017. The appellant sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a conditional discharge. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that counsel had conceded at the hearing before the Board that an absolute discharge was not being sought, and that the evidence fully justified this concession. The court found no air of reality to the conditional discharge argument, noting that the instability of the appellant's condition was a central concern of the psychiatrists and required ongoing treatment and monitoring.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-09-24 Docket: C65081 Judges: Doherty, Roberts and Harvison Young JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Edda Esposito

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel:

Anita Szigeti, for Edda Esposito
Alex Terrana, for the Crown
Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard: September 20, 2018

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 17, 2017.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] We would dismiss the appeal.

I: The "Absolute Discharge" Argument

[2] Counsel acknowledged at the hearing before the Board that she was not seeking an absolute discharge. The Board addressed the evidence, at paras. 25-26. The evidence fully justified that concession. This court has repeatedly indicated that concessions play an important role in the Board's adjudicative process. The Board is entitled to give considerable weight to those concessions.

II: The Conditional Discharge

[3] We are satisfied that there was no "air of reality" to the conditional discharge argument. The Board summarized the relevant considerations, at para. 26. Those considerations are fully borne out by the psychiatric evidence placed before the Board. It seems clear that the instability of the appellant's condition was a central feature of the concerns expressed by the psychiatrists. That issue was being addressed and the doctors were hopeful that progress would be made. So are we, but the appeal is dismissed.