D. Sandor

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, was detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Her liberty was restricted when she was admitted as an inpatient due to severe psychiatric decompensation and medication non-compliance.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty.

The Board concluded that the restriction was justified, necessary, and the least onerous option available to ensure public safety and address the accused's mental health needs.

The accused was subsequently stabilized and discharged back to the community.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of the accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The accused's liberty was restricted when he was readmitted to the hospital after testing positive for cannabis, deteriorating compliance with community supervision, and exhibiting aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the restriction of liberty from February 19, 2026, to March 10, 2026, was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty following his placement in seclusion at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The accused's mental condition had deteriorated due to medication non-adherence, leading to aggressive behaviour.

The Board found that the seclusion from February 16 to March 15, 2026, was necessary and appropriate to mitigate the risk to co-patients and staff, and was the least onerous and least restrictive option available.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty after he was placed in seclusion for a period exceeding seven days at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The accused, who has treatment-refractory schizophrenia and a history of violence, experienced a rapid deterioration of symptoms and became aggressive towards staff.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the hospital at the time, given the failure of de-escalation techniques and the risk posed to staff and others.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder due to schizophrenia.

The accused had been living in the community under a conditional discharge but recently experienced a resurgence of symptoms, including anxiety, paranoia, and a relapse into cannabis use.

All parties jointly submitted that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the conditional discharge should be maintained.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding a clear nexus between the accused's mental illness, substance use, and the risk of violent re-offending, and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge to ensure public safety and support the accused's reintegration.

The hospital requested an early hearing to consider expanding the privileges of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and manslaughter.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had demonstrated sustained clinical stability and compliance with a new long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.

The Ontario Review Board found that while the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, his progress warranted a gradual expansion of privileges, including escorted access to the community, to support his reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had been compliant with treatment and substance-free in the hospital setting but exhibited stress and hesitation regarding community reintegration.

Relying on the joint submission of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition, finding it necessary and appropriate to manage the risk of rapid decompensation while supporting gradual community reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a severe polysubstance use disorder, sought a conditional discharge to reside with his mother.

The Hospital and the Attorney General argued for a continued detention disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to residual symptoms, limited insight, and a lack of testing in the community.

The Board concluded that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate to manage the risk of decompensation and ensure public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, sought to reduce his reporting requirements.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to fluctuating symptoms, limited insight, and a history of rapid decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge, including the requirement to report to the hospital at least once per week, to ensure public safety and meet the accused's mental health needs.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital psychiatrist testified that the accused's psychosis was likely cannabis-induced, that she had been living independently and asymptomatically for 18 months, and that she posed a very low risk.

All parties jointly recommended an absolute discharge.

The Board agreed that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an early review hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assaulting a peace officer.

The accused suffers from a neurocognitive disorder and schizophrenia spectrum disorder, presenting with chronic grandiose delusions.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot meaningfully participate in the criminal proceedings.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention disposition with amended conditions was ordered to allow the accused to transition to a long-term care facility while maintaining public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, mischief, and robbery.

The Board found that while the accused had made significant progress, including abstaining from substances for two years and maintaining employment, he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness and vulnerability to substance use relapse.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, removing the strict abstinence condition but maintaining testing to monitor his transition into the community.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberties hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The accused had been living in the community but was returned to the hospital after relapsing into severe substance use and experiencing psychotic symptoms.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least restrictive option available.

The Board also approved the hospital's request to transfer the accused to a specialized treatment program at another facility, finding it met the statutory objectives and the accused's clinical needs.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her major mental illness, history of rapid decompensation, and need for ongoing monitoring and medication adjustment.

A detention disposition was ordered with conditions, including a 100 km radius restriction to balance the need for hospital proximity with family contact.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty following his urgent readmission to the hospital.

The accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for harassment, had been decompensating in the community and resisting his antipsychotic medication.

The hospital readmitted him to optimize his medication, after which his condition stabilized and he was discharged back to the community.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least restrictive option available to manage the risk the accused posed to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty and conduct an annual review of his disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for arson and assault with a weapon, had his liberty restricted by the hospital due to repeated aggressive and assaultive behaviour towards staff.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least restrictive option available.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

A detention disposition was ordered with flexible terms to facilitate the accused's urgently needed transfer to another facility, which would better meet his mental health and dietary needs.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for assault, assault with a weapon, assault against a police officer, and committing indecent acts.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia and severe substance use disorder, which previously led to rapid psychotic decompensation and violence.

The Board ordered a detention order with permission to reside in supervised community accommodation, subject to conditions including absolute abstinence from drugs and alcohol.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for four counts of attempted murder and assault.

The accused's diagnoses include schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms and the risk of substance use relapse.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with community living privileges.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on multiple charges including assault and mischief.

At his initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the Board found that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of major mental illness, non-compliance with treatment, and recent severe psychotic decompensation.

Accepting a joint submission, the Board ordered a detention order with permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation, noting his recent stabilization and engagement in treatment.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder and is currently subject to a detention order.

The hospital and parties jointly submitted that the detention order should be maintained.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his severe delusional disorder and neurocognitive disorder.

The Board ordered that the detention order be maintained on the same terms and conditions while the hospital seeks an appropriate long-term care placement.