R. v. Shaikh, 2008 ONCA 114
CITATION: R. v. Shaikh, 2008 ONCA 114
DATE: 20080219
DOCKET: C47655
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
WINKLER C.J.O. and SHARPE and JURIANSZ JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent
and
JUNAID SHAIKH Appellant
Counsel: Junaid Shaikh in person Anita Szigeti amicus curiae for the appellant James K. Stewart for the respondent
Heard: February 14, 2008
On appeal from the decision of the Ontario Review Board dated June 8, 2007.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The appellant appeals the decision of the Ontario Review Board maintaining his status in minimum secure setting but deleting a condition permitting living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge and denying the appellant’s request for an absolute or conditional discharge.
[2] We are not persuaded that there are grounds for this court to interfere with the Board’s disposition.
[3] While the appellant is to be commended for the progress he has made, there was, in our view, ample evidence before the Board capable of supporting its conclusion that the appellant continues to pose a significant risk to the community and that the least onerous and restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public is that he continue to be detained in the minimum secure unit at WMHC.
[4] We note, in particular, the following:
- there was evidence that providing the privilege of community living to the appellant had been counter-therapeutic as it gave rise to a sense of entitlement and resistance to recommended treatment;
- the appellant eloped for several days and failed to take his medication – ironically at the very time the appellant was to meet with a counsellor to discuss approved community living arrangements;
- there was evidence that appellant lacked insight into the decompenstation suffered as a result of going off his medication;
- there was evidence suggesting that the appellant could not be trusted to take his medication in an unsupervised setting.
[5] In our view, it was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the option of community living was not appropriate in the light of this evidence.
[6] We do not agree that the Board erred by failing to consider the options of an absolute or conditional discharge. That issue was squarely before the Board and the Board’s reasons rejecting supervised community living must necessarily be read as including the more liberal disposition of a discharge. Nor do we agree that the Board erred by failing to recognize a treatment impasse. To the extent there is any impasse, it flows from the appellant’s failure to accept the advice of his treatment team and his elopement at the very time when community living was under active consideration.
[7] That said, we understand the appellant’s frustration with his now lengthy period of detention and we are cognizant of the need for the appellant and his treatment team to work towards some form of community placement. As we read its reasons, the Board is also cognizant of this long-term objective and community living for the appellant is an achievable goal if the appellant is prepared to cooperate and follow his treatment team’s therapeutic advice.
[8] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
“W.K. Winkler C.J.O.”
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”