Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2018-07-05 Docket: C64814

Judges: Doherty, Rouleau and Fairburn JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Marc Anthony Caron

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel:

• Ian McCuaig, for the appellant, Marc Anthony Caron
• Joe Hanna, the Attorney General of Ontario
• Jacquie Dagher, for the respondent, the Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard and released orally: July 3, 2018

On appeal from: the disposition of Ontario Review Board, dated November 9, 2017, with reasons dated December 27, 2017.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant was found not criminally responsible on October 6, 2015. The index offences involve threats to cause death and bodily harm to his biological mother.

[2] The appeal is from the Board's disposition dated November 9, 2017. Although the appellant accepts the Board's view that he must remain detained within the secure forensic unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre, he contends that the Board acted unreasonably in allowing him only supervised access to the hospital grounds. The appeal rests upon this narrow objection to the disposition.

[3] We see no basis to interfere with the Board's decision on that point. It was within the range of reasonable outcomes.

[4] We disagree that the Board arrived at its decision on the basis of an unsubstantiated suggestion that the appellant had previously threatened a staff member at the hospital. Although there is some uncertainty around what took place with the staff member, the Board specifically noted that the allegation was "not critical" to its decision.

[5] The evidentiary record supports the Board's decision to maintain a level of monitoring when the appellant attends on the hospital grounds. In particular, the appellant:

• is at a very high risk to reoffend, even if his mental illness is controlled;
• has engaged in highly anti-social behaviour in the past;
• has a lengthy and serious criminal record;
• has a high score on the psychopathy checklist; and
• has potentially suffered from a sadistic paraphilia that has not yet been adequately assessed.

[6] Although the appellant has done well in the recent past, the psychiatrist who testified at the hearing emphasized that his progress should be considered against the fact that he is "supervised at all times".

[7] The Board acknowledged that the appellant had made significant progress. Even so, there was evidence upon which the Board could arrive at the conclusion that accompanied access to the grounds was still required. We defer to that finding.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

"Doherty J.A."

"Paul Rouleau J.A."

"Fairburn J.A."