Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: May 3, 2019 Docket: C66020 Judges: Feldman, Miller and Fairburn JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Robert Jakaj

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel:

• Russell W. Browne, for the appellant
• Caitlin Sharawy, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: May 3, 2019

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 18, 2018 with reasons dated August 8, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This is an appeal from the Ontario Review Board's July 18, 2018 disposition.

[2] The appellant says that the Board erred in two ways:

(i) by finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public; and

(ii) by concluding that the detention order was necessary in the circumstances.

[3] We see no error in the Board's conclusion that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Among other things, the Board specifically considered and accepted as fact that:

(a) the appellant has a major mental illness;

(b) he has a history of non-compliance with medication;

(c) there is a history of substance abuse;

(d) there is a connection between the appellant's substance abuse and his psychiatric decompensation;

(e) the appellant's more recent acute psychotic episode related to cannabis use;

(f) there is a history of violence; and

(g) the index offence was serious.

[4] The Board considered the correct test for finding a continued significant threat to the safety of the public and properly applied it to these factual findings. We would not interfere with that finding.

[5] We are equally satisfied that the Board did not err in concluding that the detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

[6] The Board specifically considered whether a conditional discharge could adequately address the public safety concerns in light of the appellant's mental condition and all of the surrounding circumstances. Given his condition and the circumstances, the Board came to the conclusion that it could become necessary to readmit the appellant to the hospital quickly, but the Mental Health Act provisions would not be sufficient. As the Board found, the criteria under the Mental Health Act would be unlikely to assist in his readmission to the hospital. Among other things, this conclusion was based on the psychiatrist's evidence that the January 2018 decompensation, although serious, would not have qualified under the Mental Health Act criteria.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.

"K. Feldman J.A." "B.W. Miller J.A." "Fairburn J.A."