Brown (Re)
The appeal is dismissed because the majority of the Review Board permissibly found on the evidence that adding a community living clause would likely cause conflict with the treatment team and heighten the appellant's frustration, producing therapeutic harm that outweighed the benefits; that factual conclusion was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2025 ONCA 621
- Parties
- Appellant: Timothy Brown; Respondent: Attorney General of Ontario
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (detention Order)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detention Order, Community Living Clause, Review Board Jurisdiction, Therapeutic Benefit Vs Public Safety, Precedent Application
- 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
Timothy Brown
Appellant
Attorney General of Ontario
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under Part Xx.1 of the Criminal Code / Appeal From Ontario Review Board Disposition (detention Order)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Review Board erred in refusing to add a community living clause to a detention order
- 2 Whether the Board misapplied this Court's decision in Sookram (Re), 2024 ONCA 823
- 3 How to balance therapeutic benefits against risk to public safety and treatment-team conflict
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the majority of the Review Board permissibly found on the evidence that adding a community living clause would likely cause conflict with the treatment team and heighten the appellant's frustration, producing therapeutic harm that outweighed the benefits; that factual conclusion was open on the evidence and dispositive, rendering further analysis of alleged misapplication of Sookram unnecessary.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Brown (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-09-11 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 621 Docket numbers COA-25-CR-0199 Judges Tulloch, Michael H.; Huscroft, Grant; Paciocco, David M. Subject Criminal Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Brown (Re), 2025 ONCA 621 DATE: 20250911 DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0199 Tulloch C.J.O., Huscroft and Paciocco JJ.A. IN THE MATTER OF: Timothy Brown AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE Anita Szigeti, for the appellant Eunwoo Lee, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario Heard: September 3, 2025 On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 29, 2025, with reasons dated February 18, 2025. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The only issue on this appeal is whether the Board erred in declining to add a community living clause to a detention order. The majority of the Board refused to do so, finding that it would likely cause conflict with Mr. Brown’s treatment team and heighten his frustration (a driver of emotional dysregulation). The minority would have ordered it. The appellant submits that the majority erred by focusing exclusively on public safety, dismissing the attending psychiatrist’s opinion that the clause would be therapeutically beneficial on balance, and misapplying this court’s judgment in Sookram (Re), 2024 ONCA 823. [2] We would dismiss the appeal. The majority considered the appellant’s mental condition, reintegration, and other needs and sought to advance them by expanding indirectly supervised community access. Its finding that, in the specific circumstances of this case, adding a community living clause would be therapeutically harmful on balance was open to it on the evidence notwithstanding the psychiatrist’s contrary opinion, which was qualified and acknowledged the risk of therapeutic harm. It was also open to the majority to determine that, at this point in time, the therapeutic harm outweighed the waitlist reduction benefit. Because these findings are dispositive, it is unnecessary to consider the appellant’s argument that the Board misapplied Sookram elsewhere in its analysis. [3] The appeal is dismissed. “M. Tulloch C.J.O.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “David M. Paciocco J.A.”