COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Skeene (Re), 2014 ONCA 899

DATE: 2014-12-17

DOCKET: C58454

Weiler, Feldman and Benotto JJ.A

IN THE MATTER OF: Kwasi Skeene

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE

Anita Szigeti, for the appellant

Karen Papadopoulos, for the respondent, The Attorney General for Ontario

Gavin MacKenzie, for the respondent, The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard: December 9, 2014

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, March 10, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was found not criminally responsible for second degree murder and assault with a weapon in 2004. In September 2013, while in CAMH, he refused to participate in a search and became verbally abusive, belligerent and threatening to staff. As a result, his liberty was restricted and he was moved to a secure observation and treatment unit. His liberty was further restricted in December 2013, when he was moved to an even more secure facility, because of concerns that he would respond violently to new medication.

[2] At the appellant’s annual review in February 2014, the Ontario Review Board upheld both restrictions on the basis that the appellant remains a significant threat to public safety. The Board found that the appellant’s increasingly aggressive behaviour posed a significant risk to the public. The appellant’s transfer to a secure facility was due to concerns that he became violent, aggressive and threatening to doctors and staff, particularly when medications were administered. The Board imposed a “hybrid” disposition whereupon he would be in a secure forensic unit for the time being and, if he improved, would be transferred to a less secure facility.

[3] The appellant argues that the Board’s disposition was not the least onerous and least restrictive possible disposition, and that he no longer poses a significant risk to public safety. He seeks an absolute discharge under s. 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[4] There is no basis to interfere with the Board’s finding that the appellant remains a significant risk to public safety. He suffers from serious mental illness which, when untreated, leads to paranoid delusions and violent behaviour. Substance abuse negatively affects his mental state, yet he believes marijuana can treat his mental illness. Absent an ORB disposition, he is likely to stop taking medication and resume substance abuse. The hybrid disposition was both the least restrictive disposition and necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. We have come to this conclusion without admitting the fresh evidence proposed by the respondent.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.

“K.M. Weiler J.A.”

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”