R. Chopra

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for robbery, was living in a transitional community house.

Due to escalating interpersonal conflicts and verbal aggression towards staff and vulnerable co-residents, the hospital readmitted him to the secure forensic unit after his alternative independent housing fell through.

A mandatory restriction of liberty hearing was held.

The Ontario Review Board found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was necessary and appropriate.

The restriction was the least intrusive option available to manage the risk of serious psychological harm to others and maintain public safety until alternative community housing could be secured.

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.

The accused had been discharged to a group home but was returned to the hospital after exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a lone female staff member and refusing to discuss the incident with his psychiatrist.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive measure to manage the accused's risk, both initially and throughout its duration.

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

The accused was readmitted to the hospital after showing signs of decompensation and refusing his medication at his group home.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive measure, given the accused's history of rapid decompensation and risk to public safety when non-compliant with medication.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused had experienced a recent relapse due to medication non-adherence, resulting in a self-inflicted injury and a temporary restriction of liberty.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The current disposition of a Detention Order with privileges was maintained, and the recent restriction of liberty was deemed justified.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for a patient found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault due to schizophrenia.

The hospital and Crown sought to maintain the current Detention Order, primarily to manage an imminent change in the patient's supportive housing.

The patient's counsel requested a Conditional Discharge.

Finding the patient stable, compliant with treatment, and without recent incidents of aggression, the Board concluded that a Conditional Discharge naming both the current and prospective residences was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition that protected public safety.

Floyd Paypompee, previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for his annual hearing.

The Hospital and Crown recommended maintaining his current Detention Order, while the accused sought a Conditional Discharge.

The Board heard evidence from his treating psychiatrist regarding his continued cannabis use, non-compliance with residence rules, and the resulting risk to his housing.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the public and that maintaining the current disposition best balances public protection and the accused's needs.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the fitness of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including sexual interference and sexual assault.

The accused resides in the community on a conditional discharge.

The Board considered evidence from the treating psychiatrist and the hospital report, noting the accused's developmental delay and pedophilia diagnosis.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to be unfit to stand trial, remains a significant threat to public safety, and that the current disposition of a conditional discharge with privileges remains necessary and appropriate.

The accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including sexual assault of a minor, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The Board accepted uncontradicted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains unfit due to a major mental illness, likely schizophrenia, and requires active hospital treatment.

Given the severe risk to public safety and the lack of community supports, the Board ordered the accused detained at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, with a transfer to the North Bay Health Centre pending bed availability in Thunder Bay.

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

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order remains necessary and appropriate.

The Board accepted this joint submission and continued the detention order, while granting the accused's request to amend the disposition to permit potential travel passes to Red Lake, subject to the hospital's prior approval and investigation.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

Based on the evidence, including the hospital report and testimony from the hospital representative, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to an intellectual disability.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties and granted a conditional discharge, concluding that the accused's threat to public safety could be managed in the community with appropriate conditions, including a residence clause and no-contact provisions.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including sexual assault and failure to comply with probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was floridly psychotic and disorganized.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the accused to be detained in the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges limited to escorted or accompanied passes on hospital grounds, prioritizing public safety and the accused's mental condition.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and animal cruelty.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended continuing the current Detention Order at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing substance use issues, recent AWOL incidents, and a history of assaultive conduct.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including murder.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and mild intellectual disability.

The treating physician testified that the accused remains unfit and struggles with fitness education.

The Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order at the hospital.

The Board also directed a pre-hearing conference in six months to review the accused's progress with alternative fitness programming.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had a history of medication non-compliance and elopement but had recently stabilized on Clozapine.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention disposition at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and related charges.

The accused has diagnoses including schizophrenia and impulse control disorder, and a history of non-compliance with medication and aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition, with provisions for community re-integration as the accused awaits placement in a developmental disorders home.

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

The accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The hospital and Crown opposed, citing his history of alcohol-induced decompensation and recent breaches of his disposition.

The Board applied the Winko test and found the accused continues to pose a significant threat due to the risk of alcohol relapse leading to medication non-compliance and violence.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, removing an unenforceable residential treatment condition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a renewal of the conditional discharge, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his inability to recognize the onset of positive symptoms of schizophrenia and the risk of relapse if he resumes cannabis use or misses medication.

The Board renewed the conditional discharge but removed the absolute prohibition on cannabis use and certain travel pass conditions to test his internalized compliance, while emphasizing the need to transition his care to an Assertive Community Treatment Team.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of uttering threats and mischief.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remained unfit due to severe psychosis and catatonia, and could not understand the court process or communicate with counsel.

The Board concluded that the accused represented a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention at the hospital with specified privileges and conditions.

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

The hospital and all parties jointly recommended cascading the accused from a detention order to a conditional discharge, noting his stability, compliance with treatment, and lack of recent incidents.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his major mental illness and history of decompensation.

However, balancing the need to protect the public with the accused's reintegration, the Board concluded that a conditional discharge with strict conditions was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to readmit the accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible and was living in the community.

The accused had missed appointments, refused entry to the outpatient team, and exhibited delusions and medication non-compliance.

Applying the Campbell framework, the Board found that the readmission constituted a significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty.

However, the Board concluded that the restriction was necessary and appropriate to protect public safety, as the accused's functioning had declined and he posed an ongoing risk.