Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 20200221 Docket: C66478 and C67319

Benotto, Huscroft and Jamal JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Derek Halat An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel: Derek Halat, acting in person Anita Szigeti, amicus curiae Philippe Cowle, for the Attorney General of Ontario Julie Zamprogna, for the Person in Charge of Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care Janice Blackburn, for the Person in Charge of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Heard: February 18, 2020

On appeal from the dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated, January 14, 2019 (C66478) and April 24, 2019 (C67319).

Reasons for Decision

[1] Mr. Halat has two appeals that are before the court: one from the January 14, 2019 disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) and the other from a second, stricter disposition dated April 24, 2019.

[2] The appeal from the January 14, 2019 disposition of the ORB has been rendered moot by the subsequent disposition. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

[3] The appellant was ordered detained at Waypoint, a maximum-security facility, pursuant to the April 24, 2019 disposition. Mr. Halat, who is self-represented, seeks an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge, or, in the alternative, a new hearing. He filed no materials on the appeal. Amicus made written submissions.

[4] The appellant has been diagnosed with treatment resistant schizophrenia and substance abuse disorder. As a result of his making numerous death threats against hospital staff and medical professionals, he was placed in seclusion on March 17, 2019 in order to protect others. The Hospital notified the Board that the appellant had been in seclusion and a restriction review was scheduled. Prior to the hearing of the restriction review, the Hospital decided to seek to transfer the appellant to Waypoint, which indicated that it would accept him.

[5] The Board conducted an early annual review, pursuant to a request from the hospital, in addition to a review of the restriction on the appellant’s liberties that began with his seclusion on March 17, 2019.

[6] The Board found that the appellant continued to present significant symptoms of schizophrenia, is delusional and not responsive to medication. In addition, he has a lengthy history of non-compliance with medication, poor insight into the index offences, and limited insight into his mental illness. Moreover, he has a lengthy history of violence and recent threatening behaviour. The Board’s conclusion that the appellant continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public is amply supported by the evidence that was before the Board and is reasonable.

[7] So too is the Board’s finding that the transfer of the appellant to Waypoint is necessary and appropriate. There was no air of reality to the argument that the appellant should receive a conditional discharge, and the Board did not act unreasonably in not addressing the matter given the necessity to transfer the appellant to maximum security.

[8] The appellant was psychotic and aggressive, both leading up to and during the hearing before the Board. The Board found that there was an impasse between the appellant and his treatment team and that it was unlikely he would make progress. Moreover, he was dangerous to himself and others, even while in seclusion. The evidence before the Board was that the appellant could be managed more safely by the newly funded Seclusion Relief Team at Waypoint, and that the move to Waypoint would reduce the time he spent in seclusion while better protecting the safety of others.

[9] In all of the circumstances, we are satisfied that both the rationale for the Board’s decision and the outcome it reached were reasonable.

[10] The appeal is dismissed.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “M. Jamal J.A.”