Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Tolias, 2010 ONCA 260

DATE: 20100412

DOCKET: C51303

BEFORE: Weiler, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Helen Tolias

Appellant

COUNSEL:

Helen Tolias, acting in person

Paul Burstein, as amicus curiae

Grace Choi, for the respondent

Anna L. Marrison, for Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Heard: April 7, 2010

On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 30, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] There are no genuine issues that are raised on this appeal. The Court of Appeal may only set aside a decision of the ORB if it finds that (a) the decision is unreasonable; (b) the decision is based on a wrong decision on a question of law; or (c) there was a miscarriage of justice. In this case, Ms. Tolias has not identified any legal error. The question of whether she engaged in the conduct underlying the index offences is not the subject matter of this appeal. Further, the ORB’s conclusion is not unreasonable. The ORB’s conclusions are supported by its reasons, which are grounded in logic as well as evidence provided by the Hospital. Specifically, the Board’s finding that Ms. Tolias was a “significant threat” falls squarely within its realm of expertise and is entitled to deference. There has been no miscarriage of justice.

[2] After the July 30th disposition Ms. Tolias was transferred to the current site in accordance with her wish to be transferred if a discharge is not suitable. The question she raises, namely, whether it would be appropriate to order an assessment at KMH as an outpatient is open to her to raise at her annual review.

[3] Accordingly, her appeal is dismissed.

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“Janet Simmons J.A.”