Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-12-28 Docket: C65401

Judges: Juriansz, Benotto and Trotter JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Jerome Williams

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel:

• Anita Szigeti, for the appellant
• Adam Wheeler, for the Crown

Heard and released orally: December 21, 2018

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 23, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder on December 22, 2011 on charges of robbery x 2, uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, assault causing bodily harm, possession of property obtained by crime, and disguise with intent. The appellant has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board since then.

[2] The appellant has diagnoses that include schizophrenia, borderline intellectual functioning, cannabis use disorder and antisocial traits.

[3] The appellant spent the year under review on the General Forensic Unit of the Hospital. While he had a relatively good year, he had a number of positive urine drug screens. Significantly, there was evidence of decomposition after one positive result. He exhibited poor insight into his substance use disorder and the impact of drug use on his mental health. There was some uncertainty whether he wished to be transferred to CAMH or remain in Hamilton, and whether such a transfer would be in his interest.

[4] The Board accepted the unanimous opinion of his treatment team that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that this threat was based on his clinical condition, markedly limited insight into his mental disorder, the risks inherent in the abuse of substances which were related to alterations in his mental state and behaviour, and his conduct in a number of respects that made community living inappropriate.

[5] The Board decided that the least onerous and the least restrictive disposition was that the appellant remain on a detention order in Hamilton with an opportunity to have passes up to seven days when he is ready.

[6] Given his position before the Board and the evidence before the Board, especially of his decomposition after drug use, we are not persuaded there was a realistic basis on which the Board could order a conditional discharge.

[7] In our view, the Board's decision is not unreasonable and is well-supported by the evidence. We have no basis to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.

R.G. Juriansz J.A. M.L. Benotto J.A. G.T. Trotter J.A.