G. Nexhipi

The Ontario Review Board held a Restriction of Liberty hearing after the accused, who had been living in the community under an approved accommodation, was returned to the hospital due to behavioural disturbances and substance use.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused all agreed that the return to the hospital was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision available.

The Board accepted the evidence and confirmed the hospital's decision to detain the accused.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review the hospital's decision to place the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for murder, in seclusion for more than seven days.

The accused had discontinued his medication, decompensated, and attempted to assault staff.

All parties agreed that the seclusion was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available.

The Board accepted the joint position and found the restriction of liberty was justified.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused's liberty had been restricted after he tested positive for cannabis and reported auditory hallucinations telling him to harm himself.

He was readmitted to the hospital from his community group home.

At the restriction of liberty hearing, all parties made a joint submission that the restriction was warranted.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate for public safety and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure.

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

The accused, who has a history of schizophrenia exacerbated by cannabis use, had been detained at CAMH.

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

However, noting his clinical stability on a new medication regimen and his successful use of hospital passes, the Board ordered the continuation of his detention disposition with expanded privileges, including access to the Greater Toronto Area and the ability to live in approved supportive housing in the community.

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

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and resides in a supervised community farm placement.

Based on a joint submission and uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to chronic psychosis and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at the hospital with privileges for supervised community living.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the detention disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused had recently gone AWOL and relapsed into substance use, leading to a restriction of liberty and readmission to the hospital.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate, and that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness and polysubstance use disorder.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition, but granted a new privilege allowing a one-time, supervised trip to Ottawa to apply for a passport, with the condition that any issued passport be deposited with the hospital.

The accused, who has severe autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, was charged with aggravated assault after attacking his mother and sister.

He was previously found unfit to stand trial and detained at CAMH.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine his fitness and the appropriate disposition.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to his profound cognitive limitations.

The Board ordered his continued detention on a general forensic unit at CAMH, with graduated passes and the possibility of community living in approved accommodation to facilitate gradual reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation.

The accused has a history of schizoaffective disorder but has remained stable, compliant with medication, and abstinent from substances while living in the community.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but, given her progress and stability, ordered a conditional discharge with requirements including residence, abstinence, and regular reporting.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder in 2004, suffers from schizophrenia and has a history of medication non-adherence and substance use.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight and likelihood of decompensation without supervision.

The Board ordered that the current detention disposition at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health continue unchanged.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and resisting a police officer.

The accused has treatment-resistant schizophrenia and a history of non-adherence to medication.

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

The Board ordered that the current detention disposition continue unchanged, allowing the accused to reside in approved community housing while remaining subject to hospital supervision.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for injuring an animal and being unlawfully in a dwelling house.

The accused, diagnosed with major depressive disorder and cannabis use disorder, had a positive clinical year with sustained psychiatric stability, medication adherence, and a return to community living.

However, given her history of rapid decompensation and severe psychotic symptoms when untreated, the Board found she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that the current detention disposition, which allows for community living with hospital supervision and the ability to quickly intervene if her mental state deteriorates, remains necessary and appropriate.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused had previously been found unfit to stand trial on charges of robbery.

Based on the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, which causes disorganized thoughts and delusional beliefs that impair his ability to instruct counsel.

However, the Board concluded he is not permanently unfit, as his medication is still being optimized.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital, but expanded his community pass privileges to include the Greater Toronto Area for therapeutic purposes.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberties imposed on the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial and detained at a mental health facility.

The hospital had secluded the accused on two occasions due to his deteriorating mental state, agitation, and risk of harm to others.

The Board found that both periods of seclusion were warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive means to manage the accused's risk.

However, the Board directed the attending psychiatrist to canvass the risks and benefits of injectable medications with the accused's substitute decision-maker to address suboptimal treatment caused by the diversion of oral medications.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who was placed in seclusion at a mental health facility for over seven days following an uncharacteristic assault on a staff member.

The accused, who has an anoxic brain injury and is largely non-verbal, was secluded after becoming highly agitated and striking a staff member.

The Board found that the seclusion was warranted to protect staff, other patients, and the accused himself.

The Board concluded that the seclusion was the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available and was appropriately discontinued once the accused successfully participated in seclusion relief.

Prior to an annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board, preliminary motions were heard regarding the disclosure of documents.

The accused sought disclosure of a seclusion consult report (the Ball Summary), which the Board ordered disclosed.

The hospital brought a motion under s. 672.51(3) of the Criminal Code to withhold unredacted versions of the Ball Summary and an updated external seclusion report from the accused.

The Board granted the hospital's motion, finding that disclosure of the redacted information would likely endanger the life or safety of another person or seriously impair the treatment or recovery of the accused.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson and breach of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, requested a transfer to Providence Care to be closer to family.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a history of non-compliance and risk of substance relapse.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition and approved the transfer to Providence Care, with the current hospital retaining residual authority pending the transfer.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for arson.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her history of major mental illness, substance abuse, and non-compliance with treatment.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the hospital, with a minor amendment to the community living provision to expand the catchment area for potential housing.

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

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, supported by the treating psychiatrist's evidence, that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the maintenance of the current detention order at the hospital, noting the plan to transition the accused to a supervised group home once approved.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory 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 assault and other offences.

The parties made a joint submission that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's diagnoses of schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder, and ordered the maintenance of the current detention order with permission to live in approved community accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for weapons and assault offences.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and the Attorney General supported maintaining the current conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his fragile mental health, reliance on the treatment team, and risk of relapse into psychosis if unsupervised.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge but removed the consent to treatment provision, noting the accused's demonstrated cooperation with his treatment team.