Horton (Re)

Horton (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2019-04-29 Neutral citation 2019 ONCA 348 Docket numbers C66079 Judges Lauwers, Peter D.; van Rensburg, Katherine; Trotter, Gary T. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Horton (Re), 2019 ONCA 348 DATE: 20190429 DOCKET: C66079 Lauwers, van Rensburg and Trotter JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Jemeen Horton AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Jemeen Horton, in person Michael Davies, as Amicus Curiae Dominic Bell, for the Attorney General of Ontario Heard and released orally: April 26, 2019 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated September 19, 2018. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant’s circumstances are unique. She was on track for a conditional discharge when she had two significant periods of decompensation during the year preceding her September 2018 Ontario Review Board hearing, one of which was continuing at the time of the hearing. [2] The panel members expressed concern about steps that had not been taken to investigate the reasons for the appellant’s condition and her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Hassan, acknowledged that they were “running out of medical reasons for the cause of her decline”. The Board’s ongoing concerns were set out clearly in its reasons, questioning why a neurological examination had not been conducted, and expressing surprise that neither a neurological examination nor a CT scan had been administered. There was also confusion about what psychotherapy with a therapist with appropriate qualifications had taken place. Finally, the Board noted that the appellant had been in hospital for just over a year, changing from a relatively high-functioning individual to one who is confused and amotivated and unable to manage her own medication. [3] Although specifically requested to do so, the Board refused to order a four-month review, expressing confidence that Dr. Hassan would move expeditiously in his investigation. As for what has occurred in the interim, amicus advises that, to his knowledge, a CT scan has been administered and Dr. Hassan is no longer treating the appellant. Nothing else is known and the hospital chose not to participate in this appeal. As such, the hospital has no position on the appeal. [4] In our view, having regard to the serious concerns expressed by the panel at the hearing, and in the unusual circumstances of this case, it is in the interest of justice to order the Board to conduct an expedited hearing. [5] The appeal is accordingly allowed. “P. Lauwers J.A.” “K. van Rensburg J.A.” “G.T. Trotter J.A.”