M. den Haan

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 accused, previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and criminal harassment, underwent an annual review of her hospital detention disposition.

The Ontario Review Board found that she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her schizoaffective disorder and history of elopement.

The Board ordered her continued detention at the hospital with privileges, noting that while she is ready for community living, she requires 24-hour supervision, which could include long-term care or other supervised housing options.

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

The accused suffers from schizophrenia, mild neurocognitive disorder, and cannabis use disorder.

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

While all parties agreed to add a community living provision to the detention disposition, the hospital and the accused argued for 'accommodation approved by the person in charge' to maximize flexibility.

The Board rejected this, accepting the attending psychiatrist's evidence that the accused requires the highest levels of supervision.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with community living in supervised accommodation.

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

The accused, diagnosed with Schizophrenia, had transitioned to injectable medication and his psychotic symptoms were in remission.

However, relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to residual psychosis and cognitive deficits.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition at the hospital, with added privileges for travel with an approved person.

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 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.

The hospital significantly restricted the accused's liberty by transferring him from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit after he repeatedly absconded and used substances while on community passes.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the restriction.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary for public safety, and the least onerous and least restrictive option, given the accused's calculated elopements, lack of insight, and need for a highly structured environment.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty after he was placed in seclusion for a period exceeding seven days at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The accused, who has treatment-refractory schizophrenia and a history of violence, experienced a rapid deterioration of symptoms and became aggressive towards staff.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the hospital at the time, given the failure of de-escalation techniques and the risk posed to staff and others.

The Hospital requested an early hearing before the Ontario Review Board to modify the privileges of an accused found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a conveyance.

The Hospital recommended adding international travel privileges and removing the driving prohibition from the Disposition.

The Board denied the international travel request, finding more time was needed to assess the accused's stability given his history of cannabis use and bipolar disorder.

However, the Board granted the removal of the driving prohibition, accepting expert evidence that the accused's risk of driving while manic could be managed without the prohibition and that driving was necessary for his employment and childcare responsibilities.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder, was living in the community under an Ontario Review Board disposition.

After missing doses of his antipsychotic medication due to paranoia, he was readmitted to the hospital for safe re-titration, resulting in a restriction of his liberty.

The hospital notified the Board, which held a mandatory review hearing.

The Board found that the initial restriction of liberty and its continuation were warranted, necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure in the circumstances.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty after she was readmitted to the hospital following a positive urine drug screen for amphetamines.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly agreed that the initial restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was significant, necessary, and appropriate for public safety, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed.

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.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and uttering threats after stabbing his father and brother.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant risk to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Order Disposition with privileges up to and including living in the community in approved accommodation.

The Board accepted the joint submission for a hybrid disposition, allowing the hospital discretion to transfer the accused from a Secure to a General Forensic Unit once his diagnostic profile is clarified.

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

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

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the accused's schizoaffective disorder is currently well-controlled with medication, but he lacks insight and would likely discontinue treatment if discharged.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his Detention Order at a General Forensic Unit.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for prowl by night and criminal harassment.

The accused, who has a complex forensic dual diagnosis including autism spectrum disorder and paraphilias, was excused from attending due to agitation.

The Hospital and all parties jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and requires continued detention with 24-hour supervision in his specialized community housing.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused's risk of future violence would be high if absolutely discharged, and ordered the continuation of the Detention Disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for mischief, assault, and uttering threats.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the detention order, while the accused sought an absolute discharge or a community treatment order.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, experiences ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, and would likely stop taking medication if discharged, the Board ordered the accused's continued detention in a Secure Forensic Unit.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for offences including uttering threats and break and enter.

The accused is diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder.

The treatment team reported that the accused had a very good year, with no positive drug screens, no behavioural concerns, and progress toward becoming a fully qualified electrician.

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

On the joint submission of the parties, the Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Disposition, with a new condition permitting national or international travel for up to three weeks to accommodate the accused's long-acting injectable medication schedule.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation.

The hospital and the Attorney General jointly submitted that the accused, who has schizophrenia, no longer poses a significant threat to public safety due to his abstinence from substances, adherence to medication, and high functioning in the community.

The Board accepted the expert evidence that the accused's mental illness is optimally treated and that he has good insight into his need for ongoing care.

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

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

The hospital and the Crown recommended continuing the detention order at the General Forensic Unit at CAMH, and the accused's counsel agreed that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation, noting the accused's progress and diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder, and ordered continued detention with existing privileges.

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

The accused, who had a challenging year including two AWOLs and an unprovoked assault on a staff member, did not attend the hearing but instructed counsel to proceed.

All parties jointly recommended that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and should continue to be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit, with the removal of the community living clause.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation and ordered continued detention.