COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Davis (Re), 2018 ONCA 768

DATE: 20180920

DOCKET: C64959

Pepall, Lauwers & Fairburn JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF:  Kimani Davis

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE
CODE

Paul Calarco, for the appellant

Joe Hanna, for the respondent

Michele Warner, for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard and released orally: September 18, 2018

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review
    Board dated, December 20, 2017.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]

This is an appeal from the Review Boards disposition dated December 20,
    2017. The Board ordered that the appellant be discharged conditionally. He was
    ordered to reside at a specific location and report to CAMH on a regular basis.

[2]

The appellant argues that the Board erred by failing to impose an
    absolute discharge. He maintains that the Board failed to properly consider
    whether he continued to present a significant risk of threat to public safety.
    This error is said to be reflected in the Boards decision, where it said that
    Mr. Davis
could
fall away from treatment. The
    Boards reasons are said to fall short of the statutory requirement of
    significant risk to the public.

[3]

We disagree.

[4]

The Board took into account the statutory criteria set out in s. 672.54
    of the
Criminal Code
, specifically noting the paramount consideration
    involving public safety. Among other things, the Board specifically reviewed
    the appellants history, his past offending conduct, his progress living within
    the community, and his historical compliance with taking medication. The Board
    relied upon the appellants psychiatrists opinion in forming the view that the
    appellant continues to suffer from profound negative symptoms arising from
    his major mental illness of schizophrenia. Those symptoms are said to have
    created a situation where the appellant has become socially withdrawn,
    presenting with a flat affect. It was open to the Board to accept the psychiatrists
    opinion in that regard.

[5]

The appellant does not take issue with the Boards reliance on the
    psychiatrists opinion, but suggests that the opinion does not support the
    result reached. Read contextually, we disagree. The psychiatrist testified that
    it was almost certain and inevitable that without some continued control, the
    appellant would fall away from treatment, resulting in psychosis that would in
    turn result in significant risk of violent re-offending.

[6]

Despite the appellant showing progress, the Boards conclusion that the
    appellant remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a
    conditional discharge is both necessary and appropriate, was a determination
    open to the Board. It fell within a range of reasonable outcomes. We see no error
    in the disposition imposed.

[7]

Like the Review Board, we also commend Mr. Davis on his continued
    progress in the community.

S.E.
    Pepall J.A.
P. Lauwers J.A.
Fairburn J.A.


COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Dorasamy v. Dorasamy, 2018 ONCA 747

DATE: 20180912

DOCKET: C64652

Rouleau, Pardu and Benotto JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Claudia Dorasamy

Appellant

and

Punginathn Dorasamy

Respondent

Claudia Dorasamy, acting in person

Darryl Willer, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: September 10, 2018

On appeal from the
    order of Justice R. Mazza of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 29, 2017.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]

The appellant asks that she be awarded additional child support in the
    amount of $50,000 and that she be awarded a payment of $96,000 representing her
    share of the expenses to maintain the home after separation. She also seeks an
    order that her support be adjusted annually in accordance with the CPI.

[2]

In our view, the appeal should be dismissed.

[3]

The trial judges award for child support was in accordance with the
    child support guidelines. It related to the one child who, by the time of trial,
    was an adult. In our view, there is no error in the trial judges decision to
    follow the guidelines as they provided a more than adequate amount.

[4]

We also reject the appellants submission that the trial judge erred in
    not ordering that she be reimbursed for her share of the expenses paid to
    maintain the home. There is no unfairness in the appellant sharing in those
    expenses as she benefitted both by residing in the home until the date of trial
    and by sharing in the profit generated by the sale of the home.

[5]

As for the request that her support be adjusted to account for the CPI,
    the trial judges decision is entitled to deference. It provided that spousal support
    will be adjusted to reflect any change in the respondents salary. This, in our
    view, is both fair and appropriate. We therefore reject this ground of appeal.

[6]

The appellant also argues that the trial decision was somehow tainted
    because the respondents trial counsel had had contact with the Canada Revenue
    Agency with respect to issues that arose in the action. We see no impropriety
    in counsels conduct concerning this matter.

[7]

In oral submissions, the appellant asks that we set aside the trial
    judges order as to costs. She did not file the reasons or the order with
    respect to costs, but advises that the amount awarded was $23,000. Costs are
    discretionary and the amount ordered is clearly reasonable given the length of
    the trial.

[8]

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
    fixed at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Paul
    Rouleau J.A.

G. Pardu
    J.A.

M.L. Benotto J.A.