G. Nexhipi

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges and detained at CAMH.

At the initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital, the Attorney General, and amicus curiae all agreed that the accused was presently fit to stand trial.

Relying on the evidence of the treating physician, the Board found the accused fit to stand trial and directed that she be returned to court for a fitness hearing, without making a Keep Fit Order.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual and Restriction of Liberty hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats.

The accused had been living in the community but was returned to the hospital due to risky and escalating behaviour, including lying on public streets.

The Board found that the return to the hospital was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision available.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order, specifying that the accused be detained on a General Forensic Unit.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for break and enter and prowl by night.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended a continuation of the conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, noting his history of non-compliance and prior offences, but found that the risk could be managed in the community under the existing conditions.

The conditional discharge was continued.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The accused has diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and antisocial personality disorder, and a history of substance abuse and violent offences.

The Board accepted a joint submission from the parties, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the hospital, noting that without such structure, he would likely become non-compliant with medication and decompensate.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for offences including assault with a weapon.

The accused, who has a long-standing diagnosis of schizophrenia, sought an absolute discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continued detention order with expanded geographical conditions to facilitate housing searches.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, noting her lack of insight, history of medication non-compliance, and risk of decompensation and violence if unhoused and unmedicated.

A detention order was issued with the amended conditions requested by the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an early hearing to determine whether the accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges including unlawful entry and assault, was now fit.

Based on a joint submission and expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the accused's schizophrenia had stabilized with treatment, the Board found that he could now make and communicate reality-based decisions and meaningfully participate in his trial.

The Board ordered the accused returned to Court for a determination of his fitness, while remaining subject to his current detention disposition.

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

The accused had maintained stability in the community, secured full-time employment, and adhered to his medication regimen.

However, the Board found that his stability was highly contingent on ongoing forensic and clinical supports, and he continued to struggle with limited insight, financial instability, and psychosocial stressors, including a recent deportation order.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge.

George Veerman, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder in 2008, underwent his mandatory annual review before the Ontario Review Board.

The Board assessed whether he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety under s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

While Mr. Veerman remained stable in the community under a conditional discharge, the Board noted his limited insight into his schizophrenia and recent concerns regarding his cannabis use.

The Board concluded that he remained a significant threat and ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge to ensure close monitoring by his treatment team.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizophrenia, had been living in the community under a Detention Order.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the Detention Order, while the accused sought a Conditional Discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight, ongoing delusional beliefs, and lack of professional community supports.

The Board concluded that a continuation of the Detention Order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, as it allows the hospital to quickly readmit the accused in the event of decompensation or substance use.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for mischief and animal cruelty.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizophrenia, had made positive progress and remained stable on medication but continued to lack insight into his mental illness and the index offences.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A continuation of the existing Detention Order was ordered as the necessary and appropriate disposition, being the least onerous and least restrictive option.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder in 1979.

The accused sought indirectly supervised privileges into the community and a community living provision.

The hospital and the Attorney General argued that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the existing Detention Order should be maintained.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat due to his schizoaffective disorder, lack of insight, and recent sexually inappropriate behaviours towards hospital staff.

The Board concluded that a continuation of the existing Detention Order without additional privileges was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for flight from a peace officer and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Polysubstance Use Disorder, had remained stable and abstinent from substances during the reporting year but continued to have poor insight into his condition.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the evidence of the attending psychiatrist, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order to allow for a gradual, supervised transition to living in the community with his father.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a chronic psychotic disorder, comorbid substance use, and limited insight.

The Board concluded that a continuation of the existing Detention Order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, as the hospital requires the ability to manage his risk and return him to the hospital if he decompensates.

The accused, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder and an Intellectual Disability, was previously found unfit to stand trial on sexual offences.

The Review Board held a hearing to review his fitness and disposition.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot meaningfully communicate with counsel or make reality-based decisions.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of a Detention Order with modifications to allow for discharge planning and expanded geographic area for community living.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the accused's fitness to stand trial and his current disposition.

The accused, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder and an Intellectual Disability, was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of robbery and assault with a weapon.

Relying on psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he lacks a reality-based understanding of the legal proceedings.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, noting the need for intensive supports during his upcoming transition to specialized community housing.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, was subject to an annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The treatment team and all parties agreed that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety but had made positive progress over the past year, including maintaining employment and abstaining from substances.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge, adopting the joint position to remove the absolute abstinence condition to allow the accused to demonstrate internal motivation, while maintaining substance testing and other conditions.

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 Restriction of Liberty hearing after the accused, who had been living in the community, was readmitted to the hospital.

The hospital presented evidence that the accused had become increasingly unreliable in attending appointments and had tested positive for substances, leading to a deterioration in his mental status.

The Board accepted the medical evidence that the accused was not yet ready to return to the community.

The Board found that the return to hospital was warranted and that his ongoing detention in the hospital was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available.

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.