Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 629

DATE: 20100930

DOCKET: C51532

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Blair, MacFarland and Watt JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Balwinder Singh Mann

Appellant

Paul Burstein, Amicus Curiae Balwinder Singh Mann, in person

Dena Bonnet, for the respondent J. Hammond, for Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH)

Heard and released orally: September 2, 2010

On appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated December 23, 2009, with Reasons for Disposition, dated January 8, 2010.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Board clearly understood that the issue before them was whether Mr. Mann should be conditionally discharged or remain subject to a detention order. It specifically addressed its obligation to consider “available mechanisms to manage risk short of a detention order, such as consent to treatment orders, as well as an order requiring Mr. Mann to be brought back to hospital should he be in breach of his terms”. See Reasons for Judgment, p. 13.

[2] The Board concluded that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition at the time and explained why. It is implicit from reading its reasons that the determining factor for its decision was the ability to have Mr. Mann immediately returned to the hospital in the event of decompensation. While there may be ability to return Mr. Mann to hospital under the terms of a conditional discharge order, it is up to the discretion of the peace officer who may instead exercise a power of arrest and deliver Mr. Mann to a Justice of the Peace.

[3] In view of the events of July 2008, when Mr. Mann decompensated and repeated conduct eerily reminiscent of the index offence, the Board was justified to have a concern.

[4] At the time of the hearing Mr. Mann had only been in supervised living for a short time. As Doctor Pearce said at the hearing,

…I think Mr. Mann has had a good year, however, I do want to see him demonstrate longitudinal stability in the community and he’s only been in the community now for just over two months. And I think he’s surpassed the time that he was in the community in the year prior and I think that’s excellent and he’s doing well. But I do feel that his mental state is somewhat – is somewhat fragile giving his ongoing day-to-day struggles with anxiety and difficulty with affective management and so forth. This particular time given the severity of the offence and also what did occur in 2008, is obviously a concern for everyone. I just think at this juncture, it is premature for a conditional discharge.

[5] In our view, the Board’s decision to continue the detention order at that time was a reasonable one and we see no basis to interfere with that decision.

[6] The appeal is dismissed.

[7] We commend Mr. Mann for the progress he has made and we urge him to continue with his efforts and to work toward his goal of obtaining a conditional discharge.

“R. A. Blair J. A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”