




CITATION:
Okolotowicz
(Re), 2011 ONCA 375



DATE: 20110512



DOCKET: C53069



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO



Weiler, Gillese and LaForme JJ.A.



IN THE MATTER OF:
Zbigniew

Okolotowicz



Zbigniew

Okolotowicz
,
          appearing in person



Jill Presser, as
amicus
          curiae



John Patton, for the Attorney General



Jean D.
Buie
, for the Centre for
          Addiction and Mental Health



Heard and released orally:
May 9, 2011



On appeal against the disposition
          of the Ontario Review Board, dated September 13, 2010.



ENDORSEMENT



[1]

The appellant and amicus seek an absolute discharge,
    or alternately a conditional discharge, or alternately a new hearing with
    directions.  The focus of the argument
    was however whether the Board erred in not granting a conditional discharge.

[2]

Three issues are raised.  Those issues and our response to them are:

1)

Did the board err in finding
    that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety?

[3]

The Boards decision was reasonable and is entitled to
    significant deference. The Boards conclusion was based on the appellants
    treating doctors opinion that the appellant posed an ongoing significant
    threat, given his criminal record of violence and alcohol-related offences, his
    history of mental illness, his limited insight into his medical problems,
    difficulties with assessing the speed of potential
decompensation
,
    and concerns that the appellant would not recognize the signs of his
decompensation
.

2)

In the absence of positive
    evidence, did the board err in concluding that detention was the least onerous
    least restrictive disposition?

[4]

The majority did not proceed in the absence of
    evidence.  It proceeded on the evidence
    of the appellants history which necessitated a cautious approach given the
    appellants recidivism, his mental illness, and his recent progress.

3)

Did the board err in failing to
    meaningfully consider a conditional discharge?

[5]

While the accused would consent to terms of medication
    compliance, that consent did not address with any certainty the relevant
    supervisory needs. Having regard to the Boards reasons as a whole, there was
    no need for the Board to specifically mention consent to medical treatment in
    its reasons. The Board was completely alive to the question of a detention
    order with conditions or a conditional discharge.  The majority of the Board held that because
    of the unknowns around the appellants potential
decompensation
,
    a conditional discharge could not sufficiently manage the risk that he
    posed.  This conclusion was
    reasonable.

[6]

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

K.M. Weiler J.A.

E.E. Gillese
    J.A.

H.S.
LaForme
J.A.


