In The Matter of George Vancurenko

CITATION: Vancurenko (RE) , 2011 ONCA 249

DATE: 20110331

DOCKET: C52622

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Sharpe, MacFarland and LaForme JJ.A.

In The Matter of George Vancurenko

Counsel:

George Vancurenko in person

Jill Presser and Crystal Tomusiak, amicus curiae

Nadia Thomas, for the respondent

Heard & released orally: March 18, 2011

On appeal from the decision of the Ontario Review Board, dated April 29, 2010.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the Ontario Review Board’s disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a conditional discharge. We see no legal error in the Board’s reasons. We do not agree that the reasons of the Board with respect to the issue of significant risk to the public reveal any legal error or deficiency.

[2] While the reasons of the Board do not specifically address all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, we agree with the respondent that those reasons must be read in the context of the issue the Board was asked to decide, namely, did the appellant continue to pose a significant threat to public safety?

[3] The real issue on this appeal is whether the Board’s finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a conditional discharge was the appropriate disposition was unreasonable. The Board took into account the fact that Dr. Hill supported the appellant’s request for an absolute discharge. However, the Board was not bound by Dr. Hill’s opinion and was required to consider the evidence as a whole. As the Board noted, there is a long list of factors militating against an absolute discharge and in favour of maintaining the relatively lenient terms of the current conditional discharge. Significant among those factors are: the appellant’s continuing pattern of criminal behaviour, including an assault conviction and a further allegation of assault in the recent past, his impulsivity, lack of judgment, negative attitude and the importance of continuing to monitor the appellant for drug and alcohol testing.

[4] The appellant has made significant progress since he has been on conditional discharge for which he is to be commended. However, especially in light of the continuing pattern of assaultive behaviour, we cannot say that the Board’s disposition was unreasonable.

[5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”