DATE: 20050812

DOCKET: C43388

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – PASCAL LALONDE (Appellant)

BEFORE:

GOUDGE, SIMMONS AND ARMSTRONG JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

In person

for the appellant

Howard Liebovich

for the respondent

Anita Szigeti

amicus curiae

(for the appellant)

HEARD:

August 9, 2005

On appeal from the Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 3, 2005.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] This court has a limited role in an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

[2] Here the order that the appellant be transferred from a medium security facility to the maximum security facility at Oak Ridge was based largely on the evidence from the staff at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, particularly Dr. Ahmed, that the appellant could no longer be managed in any medium secure setting. Given this evidence, that order cannot be said to be unreasonable.

[3] Ms. Szigeti argued that the short span of time between this order and the previous order (which it altered) did not provide a reasonable basis for the change. We do not agree. There were several intervening events and further medical evidence sufficient to make the change in disposition reasonable.

[4] Finally, it cannot be said that the Board was unaware of the importance of the support provided to the appellant by his parents. Ultimately, however, the Board decided on the basis of the evidence that the appellant required more than a medium security setting. In our view, there was a proper basis for this order, even though it may reduce the access of his parents to the appellant.

[5] While we must therefore dismiss the appeal, we note that the appellant reports that he is getting along well with the staff at Oak Ridge and has not been required to be in seclusion, unlike his experience at Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

[6] It is open to the appellant to request an early review. Either there or at the appellant’s next regular review, the Board may wish to consider whether the management techniques used with the appellant at Oak Ridge (which presumably do not depend on the level of perimeter security) could be successfully utilized at a medium security facility such as the Royal Ottawa Hospital where the appellant has no recent history and the staff might not be frightened of him, as the Board found they had become at Brockville. That will be for a future Ontario Review Board hearing to determine.

[7] The appeal must be dismissed.

"S.T. Goudge J.A."

"Janet Simmons J.A."

"Robert P. Armstrong J.A."