Alston (Re)

Alston (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-03-31 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 245 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-1089 Judges Fairburn, J. Michal; Miller, Bradley; Dawe, Jonathan Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Alston (Re), 2025 ONCA 245 DATE: 20250331 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-1089 Fairburn A.C.J.O., Miller and Dawe JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: James M. Alston AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Russell Browne, appearing as amicus curiae Erica Whitford, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario Michele Warner, for the respondent, Person in Charge of Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Heard: March 26, 2025 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated February 21, 2024, with reasons dated March 4, 2024. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On August 24, 2021, the appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The predicate offences involved attacks on two strangers with a hammer, one of whom was hit in the back of the head. [2] The appellant was subject to a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”). He was granted significant privileges, including living unsupervised in the community. [3] Approximately a year later, he started to decompensate. He eventually left the premises where he was living and went missing. He was later located in a different city, brought back to CAMH and detained at the hospital. There was then a restriction of liberty hearing. [4] The Board found the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and continued the detention order with privileges up to residing in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge. [5] This is an appeal from that order. [6] While there was no dispute at the hearing that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety, the appellant took the position that the Board’s failure to order a conditional discharge was unreasonable and that one should be imposed. [7] The appellant is self-represented. Prior to the hearing of this appeal, the court ordered that an amicus curiae be appointed to assist the court. We received the written submissions of amicus, along with the written submissions of the respondent Crown and CAMH. [8] In his written submissions, amicus argued that the Board’s disposition was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. He also argued that the disposition reflects a misunderstanding concerning the need to return the appellant to the hospital should the need arise. [9] At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant objected to amicus making oral submissions. Therefore, at the appellant’s request, we did not call upon amicus. Instead, we heard only from the appellant, who advanced the position that there was no evidence put before the Board that could support the disposition. We also heard from the respondent Crown and CAMH. [10] The Board’s reasons for imposing a detention order, rather than a conditional discharge, are clear. These include his untreated mental illness, clear signs of decompensation, and his failure to comply with requests to report to the hospital more frequently, which led to him absconding from his treatment team. [11] The evidence from the appellant’s treatment team, including the testimony of his treating psychiatrist, along with the written report filed, all of which was accepted by the Board, was unequivocal that any lesser disposition than a detention order would seriously increase the risk to the public. Implicit in that finding was the conclusion that no other disposition would be less onerous or restrictive in the circumstances. [12] Moreover, the Board’s reasons do not turn on a need to potentially return the appellant to the hospital quickly. The fact is that the appellant went AWOL when asked to report to the hospital more frequently. As well, he had shown that he was not ready to reside in the community because of his decompensation having become significant while residing there. [13] The Board operated on the basis of properly admitted evidence. We see no error in the Board’s reasons, and they are not unreasonable. [14] The appeal is dismissed. “Fairburn A.C.J.O.” “B.W. Miller J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.”