Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2024-09-04 Docket: COA-23-CR-1274

Judges: Huscroft, George and Copeland JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Shane Callow

An Appeal Under: Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel: Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Shane Callow Étienne Lacombe, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario

Heard and released orally: August 30, 2024

On appeal against: the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, October 23, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant appeals from the October 23, 2023 disposition of the Ontario Review Board. He accepts that he should remain under the Board’s jurisdiction but seeks to expand his travel privileges in order that he can leave Ontario to go snowboarding in Quebec.

[2] The appellant is a 36-year-old man with intellectual disabilities and schizophrenia. He has been detained at Providence since 2013, following a finding that he was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on one count of attempted murder. It is not contested that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

[3] The appellant argues that it was unreasonable for the Board to restrict his travel to Ontario as this was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition order. We do not agree.

[4] The Board’s decision is to be assessed as a whole, not parsed in the way the appellant suggests. Plainly, the appellant poses a serious threat to public safety that must be managed. He is at risk of decompensating within hours and committing serious acts of violence.

[5] It was not unreasonable for the Board to be concerned about the difficulty of returning the appellant from out of province, should he decompensate, or with the difficulties of obtaining services in Quebec. Public safety would be compromised by any delay in obtaining treatment in Quebec. The Board did not require evidence to establish this common sense proposition. The Board’s decision was not based on the hospital’s convenience.

[6] Although the Board erred in stating that the appellant had been transferred to his current treating psychiatrist after threatening a Dr. Hillen, this error has no bearing on the reasonableness of the Board’s decision. We flag this factual error to ensure that it will not be carried forward to future review hearings. The Board’s decision as to how to manage risk is entitled to deference.

[7] In summary, the Board’s decision is reasonable and there is no basis for this court to intervene. The appeal is dismissed.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”

“J. George J.A.”

“J. Copeland J.A.”