L.O. Lightfoot

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on historical sexual offences.

The accused suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder (likely Fahr's Disease) with severe cognitive impairment and behavioural disturbances.

Applying the fitness test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, requiring the accused to reside in a supervised long-term care facility.

The accused, previously found NCR for various offences including assault with a weapon, was readmitted to the hospital after testing positive for cocaine while living in the community.

The hospital restricted his liberty, triggering a mandatory Review Board hearing.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate for public safety, as the accused lacked insight into how substance use impacts his mental disorder and risk level, and required a sustained period of abstinence before entering a residential treatment program.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault and mischief, appeared before the review board for an annual disposition review.

The board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, limited insight, and vulnerability to substance use relapse.

The board ordered a detention disposition with conditions including 24/7 supervised accommodation and an abstinence clause.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for various offences, was subject to a restriction of liberty by the hospital after receiving illicit substances thrown over a fence by a minor.

The accused's privileges were reduced to Level 0 and he experienced multiple seclusions due to ongoing substance use and agitation.

The accused also requested a trial off medication to determine if his psychosis was primary or substance-induced.

The Ontario Review Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failing to stop for police.

The accused's treating psychiatrist testified that the accused's primary diagnosis may be substance-induced rather than bipolar disorder, and that substance use remains a primary trigger for relapse.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order with additional privileges for hospital/ground access and indirectly supervised community access.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, had made positive gains in treatment and anger management.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to a lack of assessment in an unstructured environment.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with increased privileges, including living in the community in approved accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson and related offences.

The accused, who suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia, has a history of setting fires driven by fixed delusions.

Based on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, amending it to remove indirectly supervised grounds privileges due to the accused's risk of absconding and re-offending.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for pointing a firearm and appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition.

The Board considered expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the accused lacks full insight into his bipolar disorder and remains vulnerable to relapse if he stops medication or resumes cannabis use.

Finding that the accused poses a significant threat to public safety, the Board ordered a conditional discharge with terms including residence requirements and psychiatric monitoring.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with court orders, was subject to a mandatory annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and experiences erotomanic delusions, leading to stalking behaviours.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her treatment-resistant psychotic illness and risk of decompensation without strict supervision.

The Board ordered a continuation of the current detention order at the hospital, concluding that a less restrictive disposition or reliance on the Mental Health Act would be inadequate to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible, following his transfer to a secure forensic unit.

The transfer occurred after the accused assaulted a co-patient, triggering a Code White.

The Board found that the accused's escalating oppositional behaviour, substance use, and risk of aggression necessitated the transfer.

The Board concluded that the significant increase in the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure to manage the risk to the safety of other patients and staff.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a successful year in supportive housing and remained compliant with treatment.

Based on the expert evidence of his treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely decompensate and pose a risk of violence if he experienced stressors or became noncompliant with medication.

The Board ordered a discharge with conditions, including a provision allowing for supervised travel to Pakistan.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for break and enter and breach of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had his liberty restricted after testing positive for methamphetamines and going AWOL from his community residence.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his Detention Order with amendments requiring 24/7 supervised accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia in remission and cannabis use disorder, had been living in the community without incident.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his mental condition and ongoing daily cannabis use.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with terms including a weapons prohibition and random urine screens, but notably excluded an absolute abstinence clause to allow monitoring of his cannabis use in the community.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and assaulting peace officers.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine his disposition.

The Board found that the accused, who has a history of bipolar disorder, medication nonadherence, and substance use, poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered his detention on the General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores, with privileges to live in the community in approved accommodation, and imposed prohibitions including a ban on possessing incendiary devices.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the accused posed a significant threat to public safety and the appropriate disposition.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and has a history of nonadherence to medication, leading to disorganized and aggressive behaviour.

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

The Board ordered that the accused be detained within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, with privileges and prohibitions including abstaining from substance use.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, was subject to a mandatory annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The Hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining her current detention disposition, which the accused supported.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her schizoaffective disorder and the risk of medication non-compliance if discharged.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition but increased her community pass travel radius to 300 kilometres to facilitate family visits.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the hospital's decision to restrict the liberty of the accused, who had previously been found unfit to stand trial.

The accused had absconded during a community program, walked into traffic, and assaulted a staff member.

The Board found that the initial decision to withhold privileges and the ensuing restriction of liberty were necessary, appropriate, and represented the least restrictive measures available to manage the risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an 81-year-old accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused had cut his daughter-in-law's throat while experiencing delirium induced by a severe, treatment-resistant infection following hip surgery.

Accepting a joint submission supported by the treating psychiatrist's evidence, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing infection and cognitive decline.

The Board ordered a detention order with discretionary privileges, including the ability to reside in hospital-approved community accommodation.

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

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, is a dual status offender currently serving a custodial sentence for a subsequent aggravated assault.

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

The Board ordered that upon his release from custody, the accused shall be subject to a Detention Order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with an added condition prohibiting the possession of weapons.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The Board heard uncontroverted expert evidence that while the accused had a stable year and transitioned to independent living, he continues to lack insight and remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions, including a requirement to reside at a specified address and a consent to treatment clause.