COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20200211 DOCKET: C67424

Rouleau, Benotto and Harvison Young JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF: Syed Jaffrey

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE

Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Andrew Cappell, for the Crown Michele Warner, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard: On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, August 20, 2019.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals the Board’s disposition. The Board made a hybrid detention order with the potential for community living.

[2] The appellant was found NCR on March 23, 2018. The Board’s initial disposition was a conditional discharge. Following this, the appellant did not comply with a number of conditions and decompensated to the point where he was hospitalized. Following an early full review, the Board made a general forensic detention order with community living. At that hearing, the Board concluded that the conditional discharge had been a failure. Shortly after this disposition, the appellant absconded outside the country.

[3] After returning to the country with the assistance of his parents, a board hearing was convened resulting in the disposition now under appeal. The appellant argues that the disposition is not the least restrictive disposition and that a conditional discharge or a general forensic detention order ought to have been imposed. The appellant concedes that he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and we agree.

[4] At the outset, we note that the Board’s reasons are complete and comprehensive. The reasons, in our view reflect a full understanding of the circumstances fo the appellant. We agree with the Crown that the Board did not err in rejecting a conditional discharge. As we have noted, at the previous hearing, the Board concluded that the earlier conditional discharge had been a failure. The fact that after that previous hearing the appellant absconded simply reinforces that conclusion.

[5] With respect to the submission that a general forensic detention is the least restrictive disposition, we agree with the Crown that the Board’s reasons amply support its conclusion that such a disposition is not appropriate in the circumstances. The Board found that, until it can have confidence that the appellant will not abscond, he should not be moved to a general unit. He requires a high level of supervision. In the circumstances, the Board’s disposition is reasonable and we see not basis to interfere.

[6] As a result, it is dismissed as being moot.