Mr. A. Mete

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, had a stable year in the community with consistent medication compliance but exhibited profound negative symptoms and minimal insight into his illness.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital's representative that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely become non-compliant with medication and decompensate without the Board's oversight.

The Board ordered that the accused's conditional discharge be maintained without changes.

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

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from a psychotic disorder and acquired brain injury, remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital.

The Board also maintained a condition restricting the accused's cannabis use to prescribed medicinal purposes, rejecting his request for unfettered access, due to his history of overuse leading to psychosis, functional impairment, and conflict with staff.

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 sexual assault and forcible confinement.

Based on the hospital report and psychiatric evidence indicating severe cognitive deficits and memory loss, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order at the Secure Forensic Unit, with privileges including supervised community accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board considered whether it has jurisdiction to review a hospital's decision to place a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) accused in locked seclusion for more than seven days.

The hospital argued that seclusion is authorized by the Mental Health Act and common law, not by authority delegated by the Board, and thus falls outside the Board's review jurisdiction.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the authority to seclude an NCR accused flows from Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code and operates in harmony with provincial legislation.

The Board concluded that seclusion constitutes a significant restriction on liberty and is subject to mandatory notice and review by the Board.