R. Rainboth

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 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 an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had several notable incidents of substance use and unauthorized absences in the past year.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of a Detention Order but amended the privileges to allow the accused to live in accommodation approved by the person in charge, rather than strictly supervised accommodation, to encourage gradual reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and major neurocognitive disorder, presenting with severe cognitive impairment and intermittent aggression.

Applying the test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel.

Based on uncontroverted medical evidence, the Board concluded the accused is permanently unfit and remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at the secure forensic unit.

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

The accused had been detained at a secure forensic unit and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, alcohol use disorder, and social anxiety disorder.

The hospital team reported that the accused had a positive year with no aggressive behaviours, full compliance with medication, and negative drug screens.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded that a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, adopting the joint recommendation of the parties.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused, who has mild intellectual disability and bipolar disorder, experienced a lengthy hospitalization during the reporting year due to medication non-adherence and manic episodes involving aggressive behaviour.

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

A continuation of the current Detention Order Disposition was deemed necessary and appropriate.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an 86-year-old accused charged with manslaughter who suffers from progressive dementia.

The Board found the accused permanently unfit to stand trial, as she was unable to understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel.

Relying on expert evidence that her mobility had decreased and she had exhibited no aggressive behaviour for over a year, the Board concluded she no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board recommended the matter be returned to court to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on charges of committing indecent acts.

The assessing psychiatrist testified that the accused had become fit following medication optimization.

However, the Board rejected this opinion, finding the assessment inadequate and noting defense counsel's inability to meaningfully communicate with the accused.

The Board concluded the accused remained unfit to stand trial and ordered a Detention Order at the hospital, with privileges to live in the community to facilitate housing waitlists.

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

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on assault charges.

The Board considered evidence from the treating physician and applied the fitness test from R v Bharwani.

The Board concluded that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to cognitive impairment and communication limitations, but is not permanently unfit as he has shown some improvement.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and requires a high degree of supervision.

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

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, had experienced multiple rapid decompensations and hospitalizations over the past year linked to cannabis use and medication non-compliance.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight and rapid decompensation.

The Board ordered that a Detention Order is the least onerous and restrictive disposition necessary to manage his risk.

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

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia and a substance use disorder.

The Board ordered the continuation of a Detention Disposition as the least onerous and least restrictive option, but granted the accused's unopposed motion to transfer to St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton to assist with his rehabilitation.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for mischief and animal cruelty.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community under a conditional discharge.

The hospital treatment team and all parties jointly recommended an absolute discharge, noting the accused's sustained stability, abstinence from substances, improved insight, and strong family support.

Applying the framework from Winko, the Board found the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of assault against his mother.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and an intellectual disability.

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

The Board ordered that the accused be detained in the hospital's Forensic Program, with privileges and conditions including a prohibition on attending his mother's residence and a requirement that any community living privilege be in supervised accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other offences.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and should remain detained.

The Board agreed, noting recent incidents of aggression and substance use, but modified the detention order to specify placement in a General Forensic Unit to reflect his current housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for arson and other offences.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board found that the accused had maintained abstinence from substances, adhered to medication, and established a strong framework of community support.

Concluding that any remaining behavioural issues did not constitute a real risk of serious harm, the Board granted an absolute discharge.