K. Brisson

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for assault offences.

The accused was readmitted to the hospital after exhibiting bizarre and grandiose behaviour at his annual hearing and submitting an inappropriate letter, which indicated an increase in his risk to public safety.

The hospital initiated a change in his antipsychotic medication to Clozapine, which required close monitoring due to his specific medical conditions.

The Board concluded that both the initial and ongoing restrictions of liberty were necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive interventions available to manage his risk and ensure his safety during the medication transition.

The hospital requested an early review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible, seeking to allow him to travel internationally for a family wedding.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to the recency and seriousness of the index offences, and continued his conditional discharge.

The Board declined to vary the disposition, clarifying that the existing conditions—including a requirement to reside at a specific address and report bi-weekly—did not prohibit short-term international travel.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and indignity to a dead body.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

However, noting the accused's stability, medication compliance, and abstinence from cannabis, the Board granted a community living privilege, specifically approving his transition to Lebreton Transitional Housing, an 8-hour supervised facility.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty after he was returned to the hospital and placed in seclusion.

The accused, who had been living in approved community accommodations, experienced a severe psychotic decompensation, threatened to kill a Board member, and was violent during his apprehension.

The Board found that the significant increase in the restriction of his liberty was justified, necessary, and the least onerous means available to ensure public safety and address his mental health needs.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to significantly restrict the accused's liberty by placing him in seclusion.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of violence, was placed in seclusion after becoming hostile, unresponsive to staff direction, and refusing his antipsychotic medication.

The Board applied the framework from Regina v. M.L.C. and found that both the initial placement in seclusion and the ongoing restriction of liberty were warranted, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available to safely manage his risk of harm to others.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to restrict the liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused's privileges were reduced from Level 5 to Level 0 due to escalating antisocial and intimidating behaviours towards other patients and staff.

The Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence and found that the restriction was a significant departure from the accused's liberty norm, but was necessary and appropriate for public safety.

The Board concluded the restriction was the least onerous and least restrictive measure available.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to significantly restrict the accused's liberty by admitting him to the hospital from the community.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, had been non-compliant with medication, using substances, and expressing violent ideation.

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

The Board also amended the existing disposition on consent to allow for future passes to a residential treatment program and within Southwestern Ontario.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused's liberty had been restricted following his placement in seclusion.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder, had been transferred to a high-secure forensic program after an unprovoked attack on his attending psychiatrist.

The Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary for public safety, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available in the circumstances.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who had been found not criminally responsible for several offences.

The hospital had transferred the accused from a rehabilitation unit to an assessment unit after she repeatedly breached hospital rules and her Disposition by using cocaine and involving co-patients in smuggling drugs.

The Board applied the Campbell framework and found that the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous intervention available to prevent further substance abuse and mental decompensation.

The Board also amended the Disposition to allow the accused to attend a residential treatment program.

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

The accused, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD, and substance use disorder, had made significant progress in abstaining from substances and engaging with his treatment team.

However, due to ongoing challenges with medication compliance, impulsivity, and a need for structured support during his transition to more independent living, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention disposition with expanded privileges, concluding a conditional discharge was premature.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible, who was readmitted to the hospital from his community residence.

The readmission followed an incident where the accused became aggressive towards a caregiver attempting to enforce a medication administration protocol.

Applying the Campbell framework, the Board found that the initial restriction of liberty and the subsequent period of hospitalization were warranted and constituted the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, was subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition allowing her to live in the community.

The hospital readmitted her after she consistently tested positive for illicit substances and breached her disposition conditions.

The Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of liberties under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of the accused's liberty was warranted and represented the least restrictive and least onerous intervention necessary to manage her risk and address her substance use.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for multiple offences, including assault and forcible confinement, committed while experiencing an episode of delirium.

The delirium was attributed to chemotherapy treatment for throat cancer and a premature return to work.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the evidence established that the delirium had fully resolved without medication, the accused had no prior psychiatric or criminal history, and he demonstrated insight and remorse.

Applying the Winko test, the Board concluded the accused did not pose a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including assault and mischief.

The accused had experienced a first episode of psychosis related to bipolar disorder and cannabis use.

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

A detention order was issued, with conditions permitting community living and travel passes for tree-planting employment in Quebec, provided the accused maintains stability and complies with treatment.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for indecent acts.

The accused has treatment-resistant schizophrenia and a cannabis use disorder.

While he has maintained stability in the community and is engaged in pro-social activities, he recently relapsed into cannabis use and breached a peace bond condition.

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

The Board ordered the maintenance of the current detention order, with the consent of all parties to remove a previous recommendation for an interprovincial transfer to Quebec.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and mischief, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The hospital and the Attorney General jointly submitted that the accused no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's progress, insight into his mental illness and substance use, and positive community reintegration.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused had been living in the community under conditions and demonstrated sustained progress, stability, and compliance with psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder.

Relying on uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused's risk of reoffending was extremely low, the Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Accordingly, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

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

The accused had previously been found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The evidence demonstrated that the accused had remained stable, compliant with treatment, and possessed excellent insight into his mental health.

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

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

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and borderline personality disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to the risk of medication non-adherence and substance relapse without structured support.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current discharge on conditions, with the removal of the condition requiring the accused to accept treatment on consent.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and theft.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and methamphetamine use disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing symptoms, history of noncompliance, and recent elopement from the hospital.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order, with the addition of a privilege allowing for residence in a 24/7 supervised community accommodation within the hospital's catchment area.