R. Kunjukrishnan

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 Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson.

The accused, diagnosed with delusional disorder, had recently transitioned to supported community living and was making positive progress.

However, he continued to have limited insight into his illness and residual delusional beliefs.

Applying the Winko test, the Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, was subject to an annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

Despite some stability and community support, the accused had two hospital admissions during the reporting year and continued to use substances, including cocaine and cannabis, which correlated with manic episodes.

The Board applied the Winko test and found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A conditional discharge was ordered as the least onerous and restrictive disposition to manage the risk.

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

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a renewal of the detention disposition with an amendment to allow community living in Southeastern Ontario.

The majority of the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to persistent delusions, risk of decompensation without medication oversight, and entrenched racist and homophobic beliefs.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with the recommended amendment to facilitate a 24/7 supervised community placement.

A dissenting minority would have granted an absolute discharge, finding insufficient current evidence of a significant threat.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder, had a stable year living in an approved group home but continued to use alcohol and occasionally delayed receiving his medication.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing alcohol use, lack of insight, and risk of aggression.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention order with privileges up to living in the community in approved accommodation.

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

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness, concurrent substance use disorders, and recent budding insight into his condition.

The Board ordered a continued detention order with privileges up to living in the community, amended to permit travel to Quebec.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats, brought a motion before the Ontario Review Board seeking an independent psychiatric assessment for diagnostic clarification.

Although diagnosed with schizophrenia by multiple psychiatrists, the accused disputed the diagnosis, resulting in a lack of progress toward community reintegration.

The hospital and Crown opposed the motion, arguing there was no diagnostic ambiguity or treatment impasse.

The Board granted the motion, finding that while there was no treatment impasse, an independent assessment could provide therapeutic benefit and help address the accused's stagnation in the forensic system.

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

The accused, who has schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, remains detained at a forensic mental health centre.

The Board accepted uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains treatment resistant and would pose a moderate to high risk to public safety without forensic supervision.

The Board concluded the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continued Detention Disposition with minor modifications to community access privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and threatening bodily harm.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

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

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with privileges, noting the need to assess the accused's ability to live independently and manage his symptoms before considering a conditional discharge.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his detention order.

The hospital and the Attorney-General recommended a conditional discharge.

The Board found that while the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety due to untreated schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorder, his risk level has mitigated.

He had not breached the non-contact order regarding the victim, and his delusions had evolved.

The Board concluded that public safety could be maintained without a formal detention order and granted a conditional discharge subject to conditions.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault due to schizophrenia.

The accused had been living in a supportive group home, complying with his medication regime, and showing no signs of substance abuse or behavioural issues.

Based on the evidence of his attending forensic psychiatrist and a joint submission from all parties, the Board found that the accused's psychotic symptoms had remitted and he no longer presented a significant threat to public safety.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and weapons offences in 2003.

The accused has diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder.

Following a period of decompensation and re-hospitalization due to medication non-adherence and cannabis use, the accused stabilized and returned to a supervised group home.

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

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his conditional discharge.

The Board considered whether he remained a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat due to treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ongoing issues with medication adherence.

However, acknowledging his 12 years of sobriety, the Board continued the conditional discharge but removed the condition requiring urine and breath samples.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review four restrictions of liberty (seclusions) imposed on the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The hospital presented evidence that the seclusions were necessary due to the accused's escalating violent behaviour, threats, and refusal to take antipsychotic medication.

The accused conceded that the initial decisions to seclude were justified but challenged the length of the detentions.

The Board found that all four seclusions were justified, necessary, and the least restrictive measures available to manage the risk of harm to others.

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

The accused, who suffers from a progressive neurocognitive disorder, was previously found unfit to stand trial on sexual offences.

The Board found that the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial as his poor memory prevents meaningful communication with counsel.

The Board also concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as he requires placement in a long-term care facility where he could potentially come into contact with children.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with a minor variation.

The hospital restricted the accused's liberty after he relapsed into severe substance abuse, spending $12,000 on drugs in two days and presenting in a drug-induced psychotic state.

The hospital sought a review of the restriction of liberty and a variance to the accused's disposition to allow him to reside in Ottawa or Cornwall and attend a residential treatment program.

The Ontario Review Board found the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous measure to ensure public safety and the accused's rehabilitation.

The Board also granted the requested variance.

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

The accused suffers from severe dementia and resides in a locked long-term care unit.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, as he cannot understand the nature or consequences of the proceedings or communicate with counsel.

The Board also concluded that the accused is permanently unfit and remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order as the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder and designated a high-risk offender.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention.

However, recognizing his clinical progress, the Board approved a joint recommendation to transfer him from a high-secure to a medium-secure forensic facility with increased privileges, including escorted community passes.

The Board dismissed the accused's request to refer his high-risk offender designation back to the Superior Court for removal, finding that his progress had not been significantly impeded by the designation and the threshold for referral was not met.

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

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, had a successful year living in the community with support, remaining medication compliant and abstaining from substances.

However, due to his fragile mental health and risk of rapid decompensation if non-compliant with medication, the Board accepted the joint submission to maintain a Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit, with privileges up to and including community living.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault in 2009, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for his annual disposition hearing.

The Board found that he continues to suffer from treatment-refractory schizophrenia, lacks insight into his illness, and remains a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board ordered that the accused continue to be detained on a General Forensic Unit at the hospital, with privileges up to living in the community in approved accommodation.