Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2022-01-25 Docket: C69706

Judges: Feldman, MacPherson and Thorburn JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Martin Hall

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel: Suzan E. Fraser, for the appellant Nicolas de Montigny, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario Leisha Senko, for the respondent The Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard: January 21, 2022 by video conference

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 21, 2021, with reasons dated July 7, 2021.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant, Martin Hall, appeals the disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated June 21, 2021, which ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) with hospital and community privileges, including permission to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

[2] The appellant, who is 38 years old, has been under the jurisdiction of the Board since 2006 when he was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault and carrying a concealed weapon. He suffers from schizoaffective disorder as well as alcohol, cannabis and cocaine addictions. He had no criminal record before the commission of these offences. The facts giving rise to the convictions in 2006 were that the appellant, without provocation, punched an acquaintance in the face and, upon arrest, was found to be in possession of a large knife, two smaller knives, a steel bar, and a small propane torch.

[3] The appellant was subject to detention orders (2007-2009), conditional discharges (2009-2014), and detention orders (2015-2021). For the most part, in recent years the appellant has resided in the community in a supportive subsidized bachelor apartment operated by HouseLink and has been assisted by a CAMH Forensic Outpatient Services team.

[4] In its annual review disposition dated June 21, 2021 and the Reasons for Disposition dated July 7, 2021, the Board continued its recent pattern of dispositions. The Board said:

The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the detention order. The Board finds that it is necessary that the hospital have the ability to approve residence so that the treatment team is able to provide necessary supervision and monitoring as well as to ensure that Mr. Hall is not subject to unnecessary stress potentially leading to decompensation.

[5] Section 672.78 of the [Criminal Code] provides that a court of appeal may set aside a Board disposition if it is, inter alia, “unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence”. In R. v. Owen, 2003 SCC 33, at para. 33, the court said that this standard means that the Board’s reasons must be able to withstand a “somewhat probing examination” to determine whether the decision is justifiable, transparent and intelligible.

[6] The appellant submits that the Board’s decision is unreasonable and should be set aside and replaced by an absolute discharge. In support of this position, the appellant advances two arguments.

[7] First, the appellant contends that the Board’s finding of significant threat to public safety was not properly justified in its Reasons for Disposition and is unreasonable.

[8] We do not accept this submission. The Board carefully reviewed the whole record, and especially the testimony of Dr. Ali, the appellant’s treating psychiatrist. Dr. Ali noted that there has been some improvement in the appellant’s health. However:

Although, Mr. Hall has not acted out aggressively since the time of the index offences, the evidence is that the reasons for this is the supervision and support provided by his treatment team. The Board finds Dr. Ali’s opinion that, absent the supervision of the Board, Mr. Hall would fall away from treatment and decompensate, develop symptomology similar to that at the time of the index offences when his paranoia resulted in his arming himself with numerous weapons and seriously assaulting a friend without provocation, is not speculation and is supported by the evidence.

[9] Dr. Ali therefore concluded that a conditional discharge was insufficient to manage the appellant’s risk and that the hospital needed to approve his housing to ensure adequate supervision and medication compliance. Based on our review of the record, this strikes us as an entirely reasonable conclusion.

[10] Second, the appellant submits that the Board erred by not asking the parties to return with evidence about the sufficiency of the [Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7] committal provisions to bring the appellant to hospital if a conditional discharge order was made and he decompensated: see Blake (Re), 2021 ONCA 230, at paras. 33-37.

[11] We disagree. The Board heard extensive evidence on the adequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage the appellant’s risk under a conditional discharge order. The Board’s finding was that he would not be able to be held in hospital long enough if he was required to be brought in because he was decompensating. No further evidence was required.

[12] The appeal is dismissed.

“K. Feldman J.A.”

“J.C. MacPherson J.A.”

“J.A. Thorburn J.A.”