Court and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20210608 DOCKET: C68887

Doherty, Trotter and Thorburn JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF: KEVIN LUANGCHALEUN AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE

Counsel: Ken J. Berger, for the appellant Andrew Hotke, for the Attorney General for Ontario Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the Person in Charge of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Heard: June 3, 2021 by video conference

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, October 13, 2020.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) ordered the appellant detained in the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences by order dated October 13, 2020. The appellant has been under the authority of the Board for about 11 years. Among other conditions attached to the detention order, the Board allowed the appellant to live in the community “in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge”. The appellant is presently living in an approved accommodation. In the Board’s view, residing in a controlled environment outside of the Hospital, but under the authority of the Board, offered the best hope for the appellant’s successful reintegration into the community.

[2] Counsel for the appellant submits the order is unreasonable and asks this court to grant an absolute discharge, or alternatively a conditional discharge on conditions which would include a residence requirement.

[3] Dr. Wong, the appellant’s treating psychiatrist, testified, that in her opinion, the appellant remained a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board reviewed Dr. Wong’s evidence (see reasons, at paras. 20-26) and ultimately explained why they accepted her opinion (reasons, paras. 27-30).

[4] In its reasons, the Board acknowledged that Dr. Wong had seen improvement in the appellant’s mental condition in 2020. However, the Board observed, that as recently as the fall and winter of 2018/19, the appellant had stopped taking his medication while living in the community and used cocaine. He had to be readmitted to the Hospital.

[5] Dr. Wong testified, that if the appellant received a discharge or any other order that would not allow him to be closely supervised and monitored in the community, he would probably stop taking his medication, fall away from treatment, and relapse into substance abuse. Dr. Wong testified, that were those events to occur, the appellant would be “at high risk to engage in violent, criminal conduct”, as he had in the past.

[6] It is not this court’s function to decide what disposition should have been made. The responsibility for making the decision lies with the Board. This court is charged with the responsibility of considering the reasonableness of the disposition arrived at by the Board: see R. v. Owen, 2003 SCC 33, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779.

[7] We cannot say that the Board’s disposition is unreasonable within the meaning of s. 672.78(1)(a). To the contrary, it rests on a reasoned acceptance of Dr. Wong’s opinion. That opinion is amply supported in the Hospital records and in Dr. Wong’s own observations.

[8] The appeal is dismissed.

“Doherty J.A.”

“G.T. Trotter J.A.”

“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”