COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Petroniuk (Re), 2012 ONCA 559

DATE: 20120824

DOCKET: C55063

Feldman, Sharpe and Ducharme JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF: Elizabeth Petroniuk

Elizabeth Petroniuk, acting in person

Anita Szigeti, for amicus curiae

Jean D. Buie, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Avene Derwa, for the Attorney General

Heard: August 24, 2012

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, January 30, 2012.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is an appeal from the disposition of the Review Board dated January 30, 2012.

[2] Ms. Petroniuk on her own behalf asks this court to order an absolute discharge. Amicus curiae, Ms. Szigeti, supported by the hospital CAMH, submits that the Board erred by failing, before the close of the hearing, to canvas with all the parties the proposed terms of the disposition order. She submits that the Board imposed a 24 hour/7 day a week supervision requirement where the hospital allows the appellant to live in the community, when the evidence was that the appellant required a high level of supervision, but that was not described with any further specificity. Amicus also submits that the Board erred by not allowing as a possible disposition by the hospital, overnight visits by the appellant with her mother. Amicus and the hospital request referral back to the Board. The Attorney General takes the position that the Board made no error and its disposition should not be disturbed.

[3] We agree with amicus that the Board should have canvassed the parties with respect to the terms of the disposition order in order to clarify the parties’ positions and submissions on the specific terms of the order. In this case, the 24 hour/7 day a week supervision requirement, we are told, is extremely restrictive and puts severe constraints on the ability of the hospital to allow any community living if that becomes appropriate.

[4] In our view, there is no need, however, to refer the matter back to the Board to address this issue. Rather, this court can change the particular words of condition (g) to strike the words “24 hours a day”, leaving it to the hospital to decide what is appropriate as circumstances require and at the relevant time.

[5] We agree, however, with the Attorney General that the Board was entitled not to allow overnight passes. On the evidence the Board heard after the issue was canvassed with Dr. Darby, there was no realistic possibility that such an order could be made.

[6] In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, and the order is amended in condition 2(g) to delete the words “24 hours a day”.