R. Kunjukrishnan

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

The accused, who is aging and frail, did not attend the hearing.

Based on the unanimous recommendation of the hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused's counsel, the Board found that the accused no longer represents a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order.

The accused had been transferred from Quebec.

The hospital and the Crown recommended a Conditional Discharge with conditions, including a prohibition on cannabis use and an obligation to provide samples, which the accused opposed.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and that the substance prohibitions were necessary, granting the Conditional Discharge with the requested conditions.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson after setting fire to his mother's home while experiencing psychosis secondary to a severe traumatic brain injury and substance use.

At his initial Ontario Review Board hearing, all parties agreed he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Order Disposition, noting his vulnerability to psychosis, need for brain injury rehabilitation, and historical risk factors.

The Board granted travel privileges of up to 75 kilometres for up to seven days to allow for visits with his supportive grandfather, providing the hospital discretion to manage his reintegration.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for offences including assault with a weapon after stabbing a neighbour during a substance-induced psychotic episode.

At the initial Ontario Review Board disposition hearing, the Board adopted a joint submission from the parties.

Based on the undisputed psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety due to his severe mental disorder and substance abuse issues.

A detention order was imposed with conditions to facilitate his gradual rehabilitation and reintegration.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for robbery and assault causing bodily harm and referred to the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The hospital and Crown sought a Detention Order, while the accused requested a Conditional Discharge.

The Board found that the accused, who has chronic schizophrenia, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of medication non-adherence and substance use.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage his risk and ensure rapid readmission if decompensation occurs.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other violent offences.

The hospital and Crown sought a continued Detention Order with a no-contact provision regarding the accused's ex-girlfriend, and a transfer to another facility.

The accused sought a Conditional Discharge and opposed the transfer.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of rapid decompensation and recent boundary issues with his ex-girlfriend.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Order with a no-contact provision, but denied the transfer, finding that remaining at his current supportive housing in Kingston was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused, who has a moderate to severe intellectual disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder, was found unfit to stand trial on two charges of assault causing bodily harm against group home workers.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing and found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, as they lack the ability to meaningfully participate in a court process or have a reality-based understanding of the proceedings.

The Board also found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered a Detention Order with conditions, including residence in a 24-hour supervised accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual disposition review for an accused found not criminally responsible for manslaughter.

The accused, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, was previously detained at Providence Care Hospital.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the current detention order should be maintained.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused's cognitive rigidity, poor emotional regulation, and lack of insight into his index offence continue to present a real risk of serious harm.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, including the privilege to live in the community in approved 24-hour supervised accommodation, pending the securing of appropriate funding and specialized housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual disposition review for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and criminal harassment.

The accused, who has intellectual developmental disorder and Parkinson's disease, experienced a decline in physical and mental health over the past year, requiring readmission to the secure forensic unit and use of a wheelchair.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his complex medical and psychiatric needs, risk of violent reoffending, and need for a highly structured environment.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the hospital with amended conditions to allow for potential placement in a general hospital unit or long-term care facility.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and other offences.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended no change to the current Detention Order, which allows for community living privileges.

The Board accepted the evidence of the attending psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of substance use and personality disorder.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order remains necessary and appropriate to provide structure, manage risk, and protect the public.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for dangerous driving and property offences.

The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing his bipolar disorder was now stabilized with long-acting injectable medication.

The Attorney General opposed, citing the accused's history of medication non-compliance, cannabis use, and a six-year unauthorized absence.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, noting that his recent stability in the community was too brief to demonstrate long-term risk management.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge Disposition to allow for further monitored reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for violent offences including attempted murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been stable on long-acting injectable medication and was transitioning to live with his parents, who were the victims of the index offences.

While the treating psychiatrist and all parties recommended a conditional discharge, the majority of the Board concluded that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition to ensure rapid readmission if his mental health decompensated.

A minority would have granted a conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible, who had been placed in seclusion at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of violence, was placed in seclusion after his mental state decompensated and he refused medication.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the seclusion remained necessary due to the accused's risk, though he was showing improvement after starting injectable medication.

The Board concluded that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least onerous and least restrictive placement available.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a significant restriction of liberty after the accused, who was found not criminally responsible, was placed in seclusion for over seven days.

The hospital presented evidence that the accused posed a constant risk to female staff and that seclusion was the only viable option until his medication was adjusted.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence without reservation, finding that the seclusion from November 11 to December 23, 2025, was warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to protect public safety.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his bipolar disorder and history of substance use.

However, noting his recent stability on Lithium and abstention from cannabis, the Board ordered a conditional discharge.

The Board declined to impose a mandatory treatment condition, finding it unnecessary given the accused's current insight and voluntary compliance with his medication regimen.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for killing or injuring animals, breach of probation, and criminal harassment.

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

However, noting his sustained progress, insight, and abstinence from substances, the Board accepted a joint submission and granted a conditional discharge.

With the accused's consent, the Board also imposed a treatment order under s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code to ensure continued medication compliance during his transition to independent living.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for violent offences and diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, eloped from the hospital and used substances.

Upon his return, the hospital restricted his community privileges.

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

The Board found that both the initial and ongoing restrictions of liberty were justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive options available to ensure public safety while the accused's medications were optimized and his progress monitored.

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 Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for arson and weapons offences due to schizophrenia.

The hospital recommended a conditional discharge, noting the accused's compliance with treatment and stable independent living, despite some concerns regarding substance use and new weapons charges.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded that a conditional discharge, with close monitoring, is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a disposition hearing.

The Board heard evidence from the hospital's forensic psychiatrist, who suggested an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his fluctuating bipolar disorder, lack of community supports, and need for psychological counselling.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge to ensure adequate oversight and treatment.