Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Shahinjou (Re), 2016 ONCA 556

Date: 20160711

Docket: C61347

Judges: Rouleau, Hourigan and Pardu JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Taimaz Shahinjou

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel: Erin Dann, for the appellant Luke Schwalm, for the Attorney General of Ontario Janice E. Blackburn, for the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Heard: July 7, 2016

On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, October 6, 2015.

Endorsement

[1] The appellant appeals from the Ontario Review Board’s decision wherein it found that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

[2] The appellant advances two grounds of appeal.

[3] The first ground is that the Board failed to inquire into the hospital’s failure to adequately assess the appellant’s diagnosis and to conduct additional psychological testing.

[4] We would not give effect to this ground of appeal. This is not a case where there was a treatment impasse that would require such an inquiry. Over the course of the year preceding the hearing, there had been progress in coming to a more definitive diagnosis of the appellant’s condition. Further, in the three months prior to the hearing, his treating physician had noted greater cooperation from the appellant placing him in a better position to progress in his treatment. The treating physician had also outlined proposed testing and treatment changes which would be implemented in the month following the hearing.

[5] The second ground of appeal is that the Board did not take into account all of the relevant factors and failed to impose the necessary and appropriate disposition. In the appellant’s submission, he should have been transferred to a facility in the Greater Toronto Area. The appellant has a very supportive family and moving to the Greater Toronto Area would bring him closer to his family. Further, the records showed that when the appellant had been housed in a less secure facility he had shown a greater willingness to participate in group programming than in Waypoint.

[6] We see no basis to interfere with the Board’s disposition. The evidence established that the appellant is a difficult patient to treat. He has committed assaults on co-patients and has threatened staff. The Board reasonably concluded that the most appropriate and necessary disposition was his continued detention at Waypoint and that the secure environment at Waypoint was necessary to control the appellant’s risk of harm to the public.

[7] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“C.W. Hourigan J.A.”

“G. Pardu J.A.”