Luke Armstrong, 2019 ONCA 907

Case Summary

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 24, 2019, concerning a detention order for the appellant. The appellant sought to include a term allowing community living at the Hospital's discretion, arguing it was a viable prospect within the year and would allow placement on a waiting list for community living. The Board rejected these arguments after full consideration of the evidence. The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, noting that the Board had expanded the order to permit community access under indirect supervision, which the appellant was utilizing.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-11-15

Docket: C66806

Judges: Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty and Zarnett JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Luke Armstrong

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel:

Anita Szigeti, for the appellant
Nicolas de Montigny, for the respondent

Heard: November 14, 2019

On appeal from: The disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated January 24, 2019.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] It is common ground that a detention order requiring the appellant to remain in the General Unit was the proper order.

[2] The appellant submits, however, that the Board should have included a term allowing the appellant, at the Hospital's discretion, to live in the community. The appellant argued that the term should have been included, both because it was a viable prospect within the year, and because the term would allow the Hospital to put the appellant on a waiting list for community living, thereby reducing the wait time should it be determined, at some point in the future, that a community living order was appropriate.

[3] These arguments were put before the Board. Indeed, they were the exclusive focus of the hearing. The Board considered the evidence and the arguments fully. They clearly explained why they did not accept the appellant's arguments. In particular, they explained why, on the evidence of this case, the "waiting list" argument failed.

[4] We note that the Board was alive to the positive aspects of the appellant's conduct during the last year. They expanded the order to permit the appellant to go into the community under indirect supervision. The appellant is taking advantage of that term.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.