Alvin Pollard

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of the accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The accused's liberty was restricted when he was readmitted to the hospital after testing positive for cannabis, deteriorating compliance with community supervision, and exhibiting aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the restriction of liberty from February 19, 2026, to March 10, 2026, was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review hearing for a dual status offender who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for attempted murder and kidnapping, and later convicted of escaping lawful custody and sexual assault with a weapon.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to recent institutional misconduct, including physical altercations and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, should his federal incarceration cease, and extended the time for his next review to 24 months.

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

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the Detention Order, while amicus curiae for the accused sought a Conditional Discharge.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to experience active symptoms of schizoaffective disorder, complicated by substance use and medication non-compliance.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, was subject to an annual Review Board hearing.

The hospital and the Attorney General jointly submitted that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and required a continued Detention Order, albeit with a minor modification to allow for more independent housing.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused's bipolar disorder, lack of insight, and potential for rapid decompensation necessitated ongoing supervision and a Detention Order under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for indecent exposure.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community with significant supports and demonstrated long-term compliance with treatment.

Based on a joint submission and uncontested psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and aggravated assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition hearing.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and Crown recommended continuing the current detention order with community living privileges.

The Board applied the Winko framework and found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to chronic schizophrenia, ongoing symptoms of psychosis, limited insight, and a history of substance use exacerbating his risk.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, finding that a conditional or absolute discharge would not adequately protect the public.

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

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.

Despite periods of stability, the accused recently decompensated due to cannabis use, requiring readmission to the hospital.

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

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm due to schizophrenia, had his annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and Crown recommended maintaining a Detention Order with new privileges for transfer to a General Unit and indirectly supervised community passes.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the public due to his history of violence, substance abuse, and noncompliance.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order with the recommended privilege upgrades was the least restrictive and least onerous disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty after he was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient due to substance use, worsening mental state, and severe tremors.

The hospital sought to adjust his medication and administer electroconvulsive therapy in a controlled environment.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive measure available for the safety of the public.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder due to paranoid schizophrenia.

The accused had been living independently in the community on a conditional discharge.

While he had made significant progress, he experienced a recent period of decompensation requiring hospitalization and had a tendency to delay reporting declines in his mental status.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the treating psychiatrist's evidence, concluding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge on the existing terms.

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

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder, continued to refuse mood-stabilizing medication and lacked insight into his mental illness.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that a Conditional Discharge was inappropriate and ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order to ensure adequate supervision and the ability to promptly readmit the accused if his mental state decompensated in the community.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, is currently residing in high-support transitional housing and requires significant assistance due to profound vision challenges.

The Board found that the accused's needs and the risk to the community are well managed under the current Conditional Discharge.

The Board maintained the Conditional Discharge, noting that an absolute discharge would likely result in the accused falling away from treatment and decompensating.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community for nearly three years without readmission, remaining compliant with his injectable antipsychotic medication.

While all parties agreed he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, the hospital and Crown sought a continuation of his Detention Order to ensure rapid readmission if he decompensated.

The Board disagreed, finding that his sustained stability and the availability of the Mental Health Act for involuntary admission meant his risk could be adequately managed under a less restrictive Conditional Discharge.

Following a family gathering, the accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation arising from sexual touching involving a 16-year-old relative.

The trial judge accepted that the accused touched the complainant's leg and breasts, but was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown had proven lack of subjective consent to that touching or that the more serious alleged penile contact occurred.

Applying the position-of-trust analysis under s. 153, the court held that the longstanding familial dynamic, the complainant's perception of the accused as an older-brother figure, and the trust reposed in him by the family established the requisite prohibited relationship.

The accused was acquitted of sexual assault and convicted of sexual exploitation.

The applicant, a 19-year-old Black man, sought a bail review after being detained on firearms and drug charges arising from a traffic stop.

The reviewing judge found the justice of the peace erred in law by failing to consider s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code regarding vulnerable populations when assessing the applicant's initial provision of a false name, and by relying on inappropriate racial stereotypes.

The judge also found the justice of the peace made unsupported inferences about the applicant's involvement in a criminal enterprise.

Finding a material change in circumstances due to a new surety plan and the death of the applicant's grandmother from COVID-19, the judge conducted an independent review and granted release on strict house arrest conditions.

The applicant sought an urgent motion to address the respondent's withholding of parenting time for their son, alleging a significant breach of a final joint custody order.

The court found the situation met the urgency criteria established during the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing the motion to proceed in writing.

A timetable was set for the respondent's materials and any reply, with parties encouraged to file a proposed draft order for make-up access.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation arising from threatening text messages sent to his estranged spouse while subject to a no-contact probation condition.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles from R. v. W.(D.), applied unequal scrutiny to defence evidence, and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge correctly applied the burden of proof, did not apply differential scrutiny to the defence evidence, and reasonably rejected the purported alibi evidence.

The court concluded the verdicts were reasonably supported by the evidence and that the appellant failed to establish reversible error.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after the Emergency Task Force executed a search warrant for narcotics at an industrial building.

During the chaotic entry into a dark, crowded studio room, an officer observed a person holding a firearm and passed it to other officers, but did not arrest the individual.

The Crown relied on a chain of identity involving multiple officers and a distinctive pattern on the accused's pants to prove he possessed the firearm.

The court applied the W.D. test and found the identification evidence insufficient to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals on all charges.