Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-03-26 Docket: C64037

Judges: Epstein, van Rensburg and Brown JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Salik Sajid

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code

Counsel

For the Appellant: Erin Dann and Cate Martell

For the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Gavin S. MacKenzie

For the Attorney General of Ontario: Christopher Webb

Heard: March 8, 2018

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated June 30, 2017.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The issue on this appeal is a very narrow one. The appellant does not contest the Board's finding that he remained a significant threat to the safety of the public. Nor does he challenge the Board's disposition that he remain detained at the General Forensic Unit at CAMH (the "Hospital"). However, he contends the Board acted unreasonably by not including in the current disposition the delegation of authority to the Hospital found in the previous 2016 disposition to permit him, when the Hospital deemed it appropriate, to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the Hospital.

[2] The appellant submits the Board's failure to include a community living term in the current disposition was based on its misapprehension of the evidence and was unreasonable because it was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in the circumstances.

[3] We are not persuaded by the appellant's submission.

[4] The appellant concedes the Board did not misapprehend the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that he was not ready to live in the community at the time of the hearing. In our view, that was the key evidence on the issue as to whether the least onerous and least restrictive disposition required the Board to impose the community living term the appellant was seeking. The three areas of evidence that the appellant contends the Board misapprehended were on peripheral matters and did not undermine the uncontroverted evidence that the appellant was not ready to live in the community.

[5] In declining to include a term permitting community living when CAMH deemed it appropriate, the Board stated:

[T]he evidence is clear that Mr. Sajid is not ready for community living yet. On the contrary, his recovery has stalled. Mr. Sajid has to demonstrate structure in his daily life and commitment to attending rehabilitative programs over a sustained period of time. In the event Mr. Sajid demonstrates progress to the point where community living is achievable, the Hospital has an option to call for an early hearing to review the Disposition.

[6] We see nothing unreasonable in the Board's analysis or conclusion. Although reasonable people could disagree about whether the community living term should or should not have been continued during the current review period, under the reasonableness standard the Board's decision is entitled to deference. The evidence before the Board clearly disclosed that the appellant was not ready for community living, and there was no indication in the evidence before this Board (unlike in the previous year) that the appellant would be ready to live in the community within the coming year. It therefore was not unreasonable for the Board to omit from its disposition a term that would have no practical effect on where the appellant lived during the review year. The Board also indicated it was prepared to hold an early review in the event the appellant demonstrated progress to the point where community living would be achievable.

[7] In those circumstances, we are not persuaded the Board's disposition was not the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

"Gloria Epstein J.A." "K. van Rensburg J.A." "David Brown J.A."