Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2019-02-04 Docket: C65479
Judges: Feldman, Lauwers and Nordheimer JJ.A.
In the Matter of: Nicole Labadie
An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code
Counsel
For the appellant: Stephen Gehl
For the respondent Attorney General of Ontario: Jeremy Tatum
For the respondent Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care: Julie Zamprogna Balles
Hearing and Decision
Heard and released orally: January 28, 2019
On appeal from: The disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 1, 2018.
Appeal Book Endorsement
[1] The appellant's position on this appeal is that the Ontario Review Board's decision that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the community was unreasonable and therefore she should have been discharged absolutely even though she asked the Board for a conditional discharge. The only remedy she seeks on this appeal is an absolute discharge.
[2] The basis for the argument that the finding of significant threat was unreasonable is the evidence that the appellant was functioning for almost a year in full compliance with the order for conditional discharge made by the trial judge. While that was true, the doctor did not have full information about the appellant and remained concerned about the serious nature of the index offence, the appellant's history of substance abuse and her continuing experience of symptoms of her mental condition.
[3] In any event, all parties made a joint submission to the Board that significant threat was accepted and not an issue for the Board.
[4] In our view, on the evidence and given the joint submission, the decision of the Board that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat was a reasonable one.
[5] Counsel advised that the next annual review is scheduled for February 5, 2019, where the Board will have the opportunity to address the issues on the current state of the evidence, and the proper disposition. The latter issue was not raised before us.
K. Feldman J.A.
P. Lauwers J.A.
I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.