Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2019-05-03 Docket: C65880

Judges: Watt, Pardu and Nordheimer JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Richard Mann

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel

For the Appellant: Anita Szigeti

For the Respondent, Her Majesty the Queen: Manasvin Goswami

For the Respondent, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton: Janice Blackburn

Heard: April 29, 2019

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 25, 2018 with reasons dated August 13, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

[1] Mr. Mann appeals from the decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order. He asserts that the Board applied the wrong legal test in arriving at its decision. He further asserts that the Board failed to address, in a meaningful fashion, whether a conditional discharge would adequately protect the public and, in any event, the Board's decision to deny a conditional discharge is unreasonable on the facts. At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. We now provide those reasons.

[2] We see little merit in this appeal. On the first issue, the Board said, in the final paragraph of its reasons:

In coming to its decision the Board has considered the safety of the public which is the primary consideration, the mental condition of Mr. Mann, the clinical view of his psychiatrist, and the Hospital Report contents and Mr. Mann's needs.

[3] The appellant complains that the Board did not expressly refer to "the reintegration of the accused into society" which is a requirement for the Board's disposition under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. We reject that submission for two reasons. One is that the clinical view of Mr. Mann's psychiatrist, and the contents of the Hospital Report, addressed the reintegration of Mr. Mann into society. It is thus clear that the Board considered that issue. The other is that, while it might have been preferable if the Board had enunciated the specific wording of the section, the Board is an experienced tribunal "that would have been alive to the correct standard": R. v. C. (M.L.), 104 O.R. (3d) 450, 2010 ONCA 843 at para. 46.

[4] We also reject the submission that the Board failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge and that its decision not to grant a conditional discharge was unreasonable. To the contrary, the Board gave thorough and complete reasons for its conclusion that it was not appropriate, at this stage of Mr. Mann's progression, to grant a conditional discharge. The Board permitted Mr. Mann to move out into the community but only when properly supervised accommodation could be found for him. There is nothing unreasonable in the Board's decision to continue the detention order, appropriately amended in order to address the risk that Mr. Mann continues to pose to the public, particularly when he resorts to the consumption of alcohol. Further, the Board's decision on the appropriate disposition is entitled to deference.

[5] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal was dismissed.

"David Watt J.A." "G. Pardu J.A." "I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A."