Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Hannora (Re), 2015 ONCA 861

Date: 2015-12-09

Docket: C60165

Judges: Feldman, Gillese and Watt JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Mwaffak Hannora

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel:

Ivana Denisov, for the appellant

Michael Fawcett, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario

Barbara Walker-Renshaw, for the respondent, Person in Charge of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Heard: December 4, 2015

On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated March 2, 2015.

Endorsement

[1] Mr. Hannora was found not criminally responsible for a sexual assault which he committed in 2008. He has an extensive psychiatric history and suffers from a treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. At present, symptoms of his illness manifest themselves through inappropriate sexual behaviour and grandiose delusions. There were eight notable incidents of sexually inappropriate behaviour in the last year.

[2] The Ontario Review Board’s most recent disposition regarding Mr. Hannora led to his continued detention on the secure forensic unit at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences. He appeals, arguing that this disposition was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. He says that in light of the progress he has made, the Board ought to have placed him on the general forensic unit or, alternatively, imposed a hybrid order allowing the hospital to transfer him to the general forensic unit if appropriate.

[3] In our view, there is no basis on which to interfere with the Board’s disposition. It is reasonable and supported by the record.

[4] Although Mr. Hannora’s conduct and levels of violence and aggression improved during the review period, the evidence shows that his inappropriate sexual behaviour has yet to be controlled. A transfer to the general forensic unit would lead to an increased risk to others. Because the level of supervision would be decreased, his access to vulnerable female patients and other females in the community would be increased.

[5] The Board was fully aware of the possibility of a hybrid order and explained why they rejected it. The evidence indicated that it was unlikely that Mr. Hannora would be considered suitable for transfer to the general forensic unit within the next reporting year. Given the appellant’s high expectations and the low likelihood of a transfer, the Board found that hybrid order would likely result in unnecessary frustration on the part of the appellant.

[6] Mr. Hannora’s next review is to take place in February 2016, where his progress will again be assessed.

[7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“E.E. Gillese J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”