R. v. Tolias
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not identify any legal error, the ORB's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat was reasonable and supported by evidence and therefore entitled to deference, and there was no miscarriage of justice.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 ONCA 260
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Helen Tolias; Amicus Curiae: Paul Burstein; Intervener: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Review of Ontario Review Board Decision, Reasonableness Standard, Deference to Administrative Expertise, Risk Assessment, Transfer and Treatment Orders
- 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
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Helen Tolias
Appellant
Paul Burstein
Amicus Curiae
Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Intervener
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Ontario Review Board decision was unreasonable
- 2 Whether the ORB decision was based on an incorrect question of law
- 3 Whether there was a miscarriage of justice
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not identify any legal error, the ORB's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat was reasonable and supported by evidence and therefore entitled to deference, and there was no miscarriage of justice.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Tolias Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2010-04-12 Neutral citation 2010 ONCA 260 Docket numbers C51303 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Simmons, Janet M. Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Tolias, 2010 ONCA 260 DATE: 20100412 DOCKET: C51303 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Weiler, Goudge and Simmons JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Respondent and Helen Tolias Appellant Helen Tolias, acting in person Paul Burstein, as amicus curiae Grace Choi, for the respondent Anna L. Marrison, for Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences Heard: April 7, 2010 On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 30, 2009. ENDORSEMENT [1] There are no genuine issues that are raised on this appeal. The Court of Appeal may only set aside a decision of the ORB if it finds that (a) the decision is unreasonable; (b) the decision is based on a wrong decision on a question of law; or (c) there was a miscarriage of justice. In this case, Ms. Tolias has not identified any legal error. The question of whether she engaged in the conduct underlying the index offences is not the subject matter of this appeal. Further, the ORB’s conclusion is not unreasonable. The ORB’s conclusions are supported by its reasons, which are grounded in logic as well as evidence provided by the Hospital. Specifically, the Board’s finding that Ms. Tolias was a “significant threat” falls squarely within its realm of expertise and is entitled to deference. There has been no miscarriage of justice. [2] After the July 30th disposition Ms. Tolias was transferred to the current site in accordance with her wish to be transferred if a discharge is not suitable. The question she raises, namely, whether it would be appropriate to order an assessment at KMH as an outpatient is open to her to raise at her annual review. [3] Accordingly, her appeal is dismissed. “K.M. Weiler J.A.” “S.T. Goudge J.A.” “Janet Simmons J.A.”