Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-10-25 Docket: C63417

Panel: Hoy A.C.J.O., Laskin and Blair JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Andrew Barkhouse

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel

For Appellant, Andrew Barkhouse: Daniel Medd

For the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen: Kathleen Farrell

For the Respondent, Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Gavin S. MacKenzie

For the Respondent, Person in Charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care: Janice Blackburn

Heard: October 24, 2017

Appeal

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 5, 2017.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The appellant appeals the Disposition, dated January 5, 2017, ordering that he be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Provincial Forensic Division. His next scheduled review hearing is December 12, 2017.

[2] The appellant does not challenge the Board's finding that he poses a significant threat to public safety. Rather, he argues that his transfer from CAMH to Waypoint was not a "necessary and appropriate" Disposition for managing that risk. In particular, he argues that the Board failed to consider the context of his behaviour in the period prior to his Disposition hearing. He submits that his risk was being managed at CAMH until CAMH advised him that he would be transferred from CAMH and that announcement triggered the marked deterioration in his behaviour.

[3] He also argues that the Board did not give sufficient weight to the disruption of his therapeutic and familial relationships that would result from a transfer.

[4] In our view, there is no basis to interfere with the Disposition. The Board considered all of the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, including the appellant's specific rehabilitation and other needs. It concluded that the appellant's risk could not be safely managed at CAMH, and that the safety concerns arising from his violence in recent months overrode the concern about disrupting his therapeutic and familial relationships.

[5] Its decision was reasonable and amply supported by the evidence, including the opinion of Dr. Darby.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.