Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: July 5, 2019

Docket: C65980

Panel: Doherty, MacPherson and Benotto JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Matthew Gibson

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code

Counsel:

• Stephen F. Gehl, for the appellant
• Elizabeth Teed, for the respondent

Heard: July 4, 2019

On appeal against: The disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 11, 2018, with reasons dated October 29, 2018.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated September 11, 2018 (with Reasons for Disposition dated October 29, 2018). The five-member Board unanimously held that the appellant continues to pose a risk of serious harm to members of the public. The Board imposed a conditional discharge with the same conditions as those imposed in the preceding disposition dated September 25, 2017, including monthly reporting to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton and non-attendance at 259 Bankside Drive, Kitchener.

[2] The appellant contends that the Board's disposition is unreasonable and that he should be granted an absolute discharge.

[3] We do not accept this submission. On two previous occasions, this court has upheld Board decisions imposing a conditional discharge on the appellant: see 2017 ONCA 816 and 2018 ONCA 533. The current Board disposition is identical to the September 25, 2017 disposition. Counsel for the appellant acknowledges that there has been no material change in his condition in the last year.

[4] In our view, there has not been any development in the last year that would warrant an absolute discharge at this juncture. The Board relied on the opinion of Dr. Yedishtra Naidoo, the appellant's treating psychiatrist:

Dr. Naidoo gave evidence at the hearing. He stated that he was in support of the Hospital's position and submitted that Mr. Gibson is not ready for an Absolute Discharge. Through his assessment, Dr. Naidoo stated that Mr. Gibson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He supports the recommendation that Mr. Gibson remain under the Board's oversight by his current Disposition – Conditional Discharge – with the same terms.

[5] The Board accepted Dr. Naidoo's testimony and documentation, as it was entitled to do. After an extensive and well-organized Analysis section in its reasons, the Board said:

Overall, the Board finds the evidence overwhelming – the risk of serious harm falling on members of the public – should Mr. Gibson be released without conditions.

[6] We see no basis for challenging this conclusion, let alone finding it unreasonable. The appeal is dismissed.

"Doherty J.A."

"J.C. MacPherson J.A."

"M.L. Benotto J.A."