J. M. Bradford

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for break and enter.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, had been living in the community but was readmitted to the hospital due to environmental aggression and delusions.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing delusions, lack of insight, and risk of medication non-compliance.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention disposition, finding that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and possession of a prohibited weapon.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing thought disorganization, unoptimized medication, and vulnerability to substance relapse.

The Board ordered a detention disposition as the least onerous and least restrictive option, granting accompanied passes to the community but denying a request for community living privileges at this time.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of assault and resisting arrest.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused is permanently unfit to stand trial due to a moderate intellectual disability.

The Board ordered a detention disposition, permitting the accused to live in a 24/7 supervised accommodation approved by the hospital, emphasizing the need for consistent one-to-one staffing to manage her risk of violence and substance use relapse.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, was living in the community subject to a conditional discharge.

Following a relapse into substance use and mental decompensation involving paranoia towards his manager, he was readmitted to the hospital for 10 days.

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

The Board found that the 10-day hospital admission constituted a significant restriction of liberty, but concluded it was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive and least onerous measure to protect public safety.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats.

The attending psychiatrist testified that the accused had been stable in a group home but remained a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of rapid decompensation if his declining physical health necessitated a move to long-term care.

The Board accepted this evidence, finding the accused remained a significant threat.

However, the Board concluded that the risk could be safely managed in the community and ordered a conditional discharge with conditions, including a named residence and a consent to treatment clause.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and uttering threats.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his bipolar disorder and substance use history.

While he has made significant progress in a structured hospital environment, his stability in the community has not yet been assessed.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, with increased privileges including community passes and a community living clause, subject to strict conditions including abstention from intoxicants and no contact with the victim.