Amber Rose Lepchuk

The applicant applied to strike his guilty pleas to discharging a firearm with intent and possessing a firearm while prohibited, arguing they were involuntary and uninformed due to pressure from his counsel and family, and confusion over the charges.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant actively participated in resolution discussions, understood the nature of the allegations, and made a conscious, volitional choice to plead guilty.

The court also found no miscarriage of justice, as there was no basis to question the applicant's factual guilt or his belief in his own guilt.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for three counts of assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had been compliant with medication and exhibited no aggressive behaviours in the hospital setting over the past year.

However, the attending psychiatrist opined that the accused still lacked insight and posed a risk of decompensation and violence if exposed to unstructured community stress and substance use.

Applying the frameworks from Winko and Ramos, the Board concluded the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual hearing for an accused found NCR for weapons and assault offences, who is currently subject to a Conditional Discharge.

The Hospital and the accused jointly recommended removing the condition prohibiting substance use to test his ability to abstain or moderate consumption in the community before a potential future Absolute Discharge.

The Crown opposed the removal, citing the accused's history of substance-induced violence.

Applying the Ramos and Winko frameworks, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but concluded that removing the prohibition clause was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, allowing the treatment team to monitor his coping skills and intervene if his mental status deteriorates.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to schizophrenia, substance use disorders, and recent aggressive behaviour.

Concluding that a treatment impasse had been reached after years of limited progress, the Board ordered an independent assessment of the accused's diagnosis and treatment plan.

The Board maintained the detention order, added a cannabis prohibition, removed community living privileges, and declined to order a transfer to another hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder.

The accused did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his major mental illness, substance use disorders, and recent incidents of physical aggression.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital without changes to the terms and conditions, concluding that a highly structured and supervised environment remains necessary.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of assault.

The accused suffers from Delusional Disorder and has a history of substance abuse.

While the accused remained stable over the past year with support and supervision, he continues to have limited insight into his illness and requires ongoing assistance with daily activities.

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

The detention order was continued with the same terms and conditions.

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

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

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused had a positive year, remained compliant with medication, and had negative drug screens, though he continued to experience some hallucinations and anxiety.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge, but removed the prohibition against alcohol consumption as recommended by all parties.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing substance use, lack of insight, and risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition with a transfer to the Brébeuf program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, restricting travel passes to Southern Ontario to prioritize rehabilitation and community reintegration with family support.

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

The accused sought an absolute discharge to live with his father, the victim of the index offence.

The hospital and Crown recommended a renewed detention order with community living privileges in Hamilton.

Relying on the expert evidence of the attending psychiatrist, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder, limited insight, and risk of rapid decompensation if non-compliant with medication.

The Board renewed the detention order with added community living provisions and removed the incendiary device prohibition.

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

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

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his persistent schizophrenia, refractory psychotic symptoms, lack of insight, and history of noncompliance with treatment.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order remained the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to ensure public safety and allow for rapid readmission if necessary.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible entry and is subject to a detention disposition.

The accused was readmitted to the hospital after a decline in community functioning, non-attendance at programming, and his substitute decision-maker's refusal to consent to an optimized medication schedule.

The Board found that both the initial and ongoing restrictions of liberty were necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive interventions available to manage the accused's risk to the public and return him to his baseline mental state.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberties of an accused found not criminally responsible, following his assault on a co-patient.

The hospital had placed the accused in seclusion and gradually restored his privileges over a month.

The Board found that the restrictions on the accused's liberties were significant but necessary and appropriate to monitor his mental state and ensure the safety of the co-patient.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, was discharged to the community but readmitted to the hospital after breaching his community plan, including substance use and failing to attend appointments.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board of the restriction of liberty.

The Board held a hearing and found that the significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty was necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure to manage his risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine whether the accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges, remained unfit.

Based on the evidence of her treating psychiatrist, the accused's mental status had stabilized following medication optimization and abstinence from substances.

The Board found the accused was now able to understand the nature of the proceedings, the roles of court officers, and instruct counsel.

The Board concluded the accused was fit to stand trial and ordered her returned to court, remaining detained at the hospital in the interim.

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

The accused, who has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, had been detained at a forensic psychiatry program.

Based on a joint submission, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of mental deterioration and violent acting out if not properly supported.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with discretionary privileges to allow for a gradual, supported transition to community living.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder and criminal negligence causing death.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorders, and a history of decompensation and non-compliance when granted increased liberty in the community.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his mental illness, substance use, lack of insight, and antisocial attitudes.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, including a transfer to a different mental health centre.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review two Restrictions of Liberty (ROL) imposed on the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The hospital restricted the accused's liberties after his mental status significantly deteriorated following a fall, leading to disorganization, paranoia, and aggressive behavior.

The Board found that both the March and April ROLs were warranted, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measures to stabilize the accused's mental health.

The sentencing reasons in this first-degree murder case reflect on the complexity of modern criminal trials, the evolution of the justice system, and the application of what the judge terms "spiritual laws" of truth and justice.

The judge, reflecting on a long career, discusses the facts and evidence that led to the conviction, the character and conduct of the accused, and the broader lessons for society.

The sentence imposed is life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, with ancillary orders including weapons prohibition and DNA order.

This decision addresses the admissibility of ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Mark Bakir, in the prosecution of Alessandro Giammichele for murder.

The court reviews the law on hearsay, including both the traditional state of mind exception and the principled approach, and applies these to various statements made by the deceased to friends and family regarding a loan and the accused's failure to repay.

The court finds most of the statements admissible, with some exceptions for opinion and cumulative evidence.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, requested an absolute or conditional discharge.

The hospital and Attorney General recommended continuing the detention order.

The Board found that the accused continues to experience entrenched grandiose delusions, lacks insight into his illness, and relies on external controls to maintain medication adherence.

Concluding that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board ordered the continuation of the detention order.