Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: April 29, 2019 Docket: C66079 Judges: Lauwers, van Rensburg and Trotter JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Jemeen Horton

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Appellant: Jemeen Horton, in person

Amicus Curiae: Michael Davies

Respondent: Dominic Bell, for the Attorney General of Ontario

Heard and Released Orally: April 26, 2019

On Appeal Against: The disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated September 19, 2018

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant's circumstances are unique. She was on track for a conditional discharge when she had two significant periods of decompensation during the year preceding her September 2018 Ontario Review Board hearing, one of which was continuing at the time of the hearing.

[2] The panel members expressed concern about steps that had not been taken to investigate the reasons for the appellant's condition and her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Hassan, acknowledged that they were "running out of medical reasons for the cause of her decline". The Board's ongoing concerns were set out clearly in its reasons, questioning why a neurological examination had not been conducted, and expressing surprise that neither a neurological examination nor a CT scan had been administered. There was also confusion about what psychotherapy with a therapist with appropriate qualifications had taken place. Finally, the Board noted that the appellant had been in hospital for just over a year, changing from a relatively high-functioning individual to one who is confused and amotivated and unable to manage her own medication.

[3] Although specifically requested to do so, the Board refused to order a four-month review, expressing confidence that Dr. Hassan would move expeditiously in his investigation. As for what has occurred in the interim, amicus advises that, to his knowledge, a CT scan has been administered and Dr. Hassan is no longer treating the appellant. Nothing else is known and the hospital chose not to participate in this appeal. As such, the hospital has no position on the appeal.

[4] In our view, having regard to the serious concerns expressed by the panel at the hearing, and in the unusual circumstances of this case, it is in the interest of justice to order the Board to conduct an expedited hearing.

[5] The appeal is accordingly allowed.

P. Lauwers J.A. K. van Rensburg J.A. G.T. Trotter J.A.