Osawe (Re)
The Court concluded the Board's refusal to order a conditional discharge was reasonable based on evidence that the proposed terms lacked necessary structure and supervision; however the disposition contained an obvious oversight and must be amended by deleting the phrase '24 hour a day supervised' from paragraph 2(f).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 940
- Parties
- Appellant: Edward Osawe; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario; Intervener: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 22 November 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part: the Ontario Review Board's disposition is otherwise upheld as reasonable but is amended to remove the phrase '24 hour a day supervised' from paragraph 2(f).
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Discharge, Detention Order, Supervision Requirements, Risk Management, Consent to Treatment, Reasonableness Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Edward Osawe
Appellant
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board's disposition was unreasonable
- 2 Whether a conditional discharge with proposed terms would provide equivalent public protection to continued detention
- 3 Whether the 24 hour a day supervision phrase in the disposition was an oversight and should be removed
Ratio Decidendi
The Court concluded the Board's refusal to order a conditional discharge was reasonable based on evidence that the proposed terms lacked necessary structure and supervision; however the disposition contained an obvious oversight and must be amended by deleting the phrase '24 hour a day supervised' from paragraph 2(f).
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part: the Ontario Review Board's disposition is otherwise upheld as reasonable but is amended to remove the phrase '24 hour a day supervised' from paragraph 2(f).
Orders
- Amend the Ontario Review Board disposition by removing the phrase '24 hour a day supervised' from paragraph 2(f).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Osawe (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-11-22 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 940 Docket numbers C65106 Judges Doherty, David H.; Rouleau, Paul S.; van Rensburg, Katherine Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Osawe (Re), 2018 ONCA 940 DATE: 20181122 DOCKET: C65106 Doherty, Rouleau and van Rensburg JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Edward Osawe AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Kelley Bryan, for the appellant Eric H. Siebenmorgen, for the Attorney General of Ontario Gavin S. MacKenzie, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Heard and released orally: November 16, 2018 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated February 6, 2018. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] We are satisfied that the appeal of the Board’s disposition should be dismissed subject to one variation. [2] The appellant asserts that the disposition is unreasonable. Essentially, his argument is that the Board failed to consider that the terms of the proposed conditional discharge would, in effect, provide the same protection for the public as the current detention order. [3] We disagree. The Board was alive to the appellant’s desire for a conditional discharge and his willingness to consent to treatment. The issue, however, was whether the structure he required, including supervision, which until that point was 24 hours a day (with the exception of four 45 minutes periods per week, when Mr. Osawe was in the community unsupervised), could be provided other than through a detention order. [4] The Board concluded that the proposed conditional discharge terms did not provide the structure required for Mr. Osawe’s continued transition from a group home to community living with less supervision. There was a need for the Hospital to continue to approve housing and to monitor Mr. Osawe’s mental state and to intervene quickly if necessary to return him to the Hospital should there be a decompensation. [5] The appellant is correct that the Board’s summary of the expert evidence incorrectly states that Mr. Osawe had historically stopped taking medication in the absence of supports. In fact, Dr. Mishra’s evidence was that Mr. Osawe had historically expressed the wish to stop his medication once he was outside the jurisdiction of the Board. Dr. Mishra’s concern was that Mr. Osawe had “a long history of supervision failures”, with a lengthy period of unstable housing before he came under the Board’s jurisdiction, and a poor understanding of his mental illness, and he continued to deny his role in the index offences. In these circumstances, although Mr. Osawe was compliant with medication, and abstained from substances, he had not internalized the controls that were essential to his continued recovery. While the appellant was doing well in his present residence, this was because of the structured environment and intensive daily supervision. As the Board accepted, the Hospital needed to be able to approve the appellant’s accommodation and to manage his risk to the community during this time of transition to less supervision in the community. [6] We do not see anything unreasonable in the Board’s refusal to order a conditional discharge. The disposition, apart from the failure to remove the 24 hour supervision requirement, is fully supported by the evidence that was before the Board, including the Hospital report and Dr. Mishra’s testimony. The Board engaged appropriately with the issues and reasonably concluded that a conditional discharge was not appropriate at this time. [7] We agree with the parties that the Board’s failure to remove the 24 hour supervision condition appears to have been an oversight. The evidence fully supports that the goal for Mr. Osawe is to continue his transition to less supervised accommodation in the community, consistent with the considerable progress he has been making. [8] The appeal is therefore allowed, but only to the extent that the disposition is amended to remove the phrase “24 hour a day supervised” from para. 2(f). “Doherty J.A.” “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.”