W. Johnston

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to significantly restrict the accused's liberty by placing him in seclusion following a severe assault on a co-patient.

The accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for assault, was secluded from November 2 to November 22, 2023, due to imminent risk of violence, active psychotic symptoms, and weapon-making behaviour.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary for public safety.

Additionally, the Board ordered an independent assessment of the accused's mental condition and risk to public safety to be completed prior to his annual review hearing.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused, who was subject to a disposition ordering his detention, had been placed in seclusion for a period exceeding seven days following an incident where he attempted to punch a staff member.

The Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of liberty.

The Board found that both the initial restriction and the continuing restriction until his discharge from seclusion were necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive options available to the hospital given the accused's history of assaultive behaviour, increase in symptoms, and refusal to accept medication.

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

The accused requested international travel privileges to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The hospital and the Attorney General opposed the request, citing the accused's recent behavioural dysregulation, inability to successfully complete overnight passes, and reliance on family members who struggled to enforce hospital rules and medication compliance.

The Board found that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety and concluded that international travel was premature.

The detention order was renewed on the existing terms.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible, was living in an approved group home but left without permission.

Due to a lack of available beds in less secure units, the hospital admitted him to a secure forensic assessment unit and denied him all privileges based on a blanket hospital policy.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine if this restriction of liberty was justified.

The Board found that while the initial admission was justified due to the lack of housing, the ongoing denial of privileges based on a rigid policy rather than an individualized assessment was an unjustified restriction of liberty.

The Board ordered the hospital to transfer the accused to a unit where he could access his privileges.

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

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and experiences persistent paranoid delusions about her stepfather, making her family home an unsafe environment.

Despite clinical stability, she refuses therapeutic programming and has housing arrears preventing independent placement.

The Board found she remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of her Detention Order with the deletion of one condition.

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 accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault with a weapon and theft under $5,000.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the Board considered psychiatric evidence indicating the accused suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders, with ongoing psychotic symptoms and crystalized delusions.

Applying the test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board concluded the accused remained unfit to stand trial as he lacked a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and could not meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board found the accused posed a significant threat to public safety and ordered his detention at the hospital, adopting the recommended conditions as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, with minor modifications to driving and reporting requirements.

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 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 an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

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

The Board ordered the maintenance of the current detention order at the hospital, noting the plan to transition the accused to a supervised group home once approved.

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

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her history of major mental illness, substance abuse, and non-compliance with treatment.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the hospital, with a minor amendment to the community living provision to expand the catchment area for potential housing.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson and breach of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, requested a transfer to Providence Care to be closer to family.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a history of non-compliance and risk of substance relapse.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition and approved the transfer to Providence Care, with the current hospital retaining residual authority pending the transfer.

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

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and the Attorney General supported maintaining the current conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his fragile mental health, reliance on the treatment team, and risk of relapse into psychosis if unsupervised.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge but removed the consent to treatment provision, noting the accused's demonstrated cooperation with his treatment team.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the accused posed a significant threat to public safety and the appropriate disposition.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and has a history of nonadherence to medication, leading to disorganized and aggressive behaviour.

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

The Board ordered that the accused be detained within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, with privileges and prohibitions including abstaining from substance use.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and assaulting peace officers.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine his disposition.

The Board found that the accused, who has a history of bipolar disorder, medication nonadherence, and substance use, poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered his detention on the General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores, with privileges to live in the community in approved accommodation, and imposed prohibitions including a ban on possessing incendiary devices.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, was subject to a mandatory annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The Hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining her current detention disposition, which the accused supported.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her schizoaffective disorder and the risk of medication non-compliance if discharged.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition but increased her community pass travel radius to 300 kilometres to facilitate family visits.

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

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for arson, had been subject to a detention order.

While the treating psychiatrist and the Hospital recommended continuing the detention order due to recent gambling and rule breaches, the majority of the Board found that the accused's risks were well-managed at her transitional residence.

Noting her five years of sobriety and overall positive trajectory, the majority ordered a Conditional Discharge.

A dissenting member would have maintained the detention order.

The hospital requested an early review of the accused's Conditional Discharge Disposition after he eloped from the hospital and his mental health deteriorated due to medication non-compliance.

The accused, who has a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder and a history of unprovoked violence, experienced a psychotic decompensation requiring involuntary admission and seclusion.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a Detention Order Disposition, as his risk could no longer be safely managed in the community.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, had made significant progress in a transitional facility.

However, based on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention disposition on a joint submission from all parties.

Flora Sadik, previously found NCR for assault with a weapon, was subject to a mandatory annual review of her Detention Order by the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and Crown recommended continuing the Detention Order, which the accused did not contest.

The Board accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience symptoms of psychosis, lacks insight into her illness, and would likely decompensate and pose a significant threat to public safety if discharged.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order to ensure medication adherence and facilitate a highly supervised transition to community living.