Andrew Eric Stastny

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for second-degree murder after stabbing a friend 22 times while psychotic and paranoid.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and Crown recommended a detention order with a range of privileges and conditions, including a weapons ban and substance prohibitions.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's strong insight, medication compliance, and two years of being asymptomatic, while adding non-contact and non-attendance clauses.

The accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and obstructing a peace officer, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a fitness hearing.

Following treatment with antipsychotic medications at the hospital, her mental status significantly improved.

Based on the joint submission of the parties and the psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused fit to stand trial and remitted her matter back to court for adjudication.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's Disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault and other offences, has diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders.

Based on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to limited insight, persistent psychotic symptoms, and recent substance use requiring hospital readmission.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, concluding that 24/7 supervised accommodation is necessary to manage the risk.

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

The hospital, supported by the Attorney General and the accused, recommended transferring the accused from a high secure program to a less restrictive facility due to his significant progress, medication compliance, and abstinence from substances.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but agreed that he no longer requires high secure detention.

The Board ordered his transfer to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care with specified privileges.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and manslaughter and designated as a high-risk accused.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-refractory schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at a high-secure facility but amended the disposition to remove absences for 'compassionate' and 'legal' purposes to comply with the restrictions on high-risk accused under s. 672.64(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's application for an assessment of criminal responsibility regarding Deeva John, who had entered guilty pleas to multiple assault-related charges.

The court found that although Ms. John suffers from Cluster B personality disorder traits, there were no reasonable grounds to doubt her capacity under section 16 of the Criminal Code to appreciate the nature and quality of her conduct or to know that it was wrong at the time of the offences.

The decision emphasized that the Crown failed to establish the lower threshold of "reasonable grounds to doubt" criminal responsibility due to mental disorder, as the evidence showed Ms. John’s conduct was purposeful and responsive to her environment rather than indicative of incapacity.

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

The accused sought a transfer to a less secure hospital.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused requires a longer period of stability, engagement in therapeutic programs, and better management of substance use issues before a transfer can be considered.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant risk to public safety and ordered no change to the current disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and other offences.

The accused has a complex psychiatric profile, including schizoaffective disorder and a history of polysubstance abuse, and recently assaulted staff while in treatment.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care with appropriate privileges and conditions to facilitate his rehabilitation and manage his risk.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and robbery and designated as a high-risk accused.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention order, and the accused did not contest his high-risk designation at this time.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to treatment refractory schizophrenia and a risk of decompensation if untreated.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The court considered whether it could impose sentence under section 669.2 of the Criminal Code after the trial judge retired, where the trial judge’s reasons for conviction and acquittal on two counts of sexual assault were ambiguous and appeared to conflate evidence between counts.

The Crown argued for sentencing to proceed, while Amicus argued a mistrial was necessary due to the confusion in the trial judge’s reasons.

The court found the errors and conflation in the trial judge’s reasons too significant to proceed to sentencing and declared a mistrial, remitting the matter for a new trial.

The appellant, Marc Owusu-Boamah, appealed his conviction for administering a noxious substance and his global ten-year sentence following a kidnapping and extortion.

The trial judge found the appellant was a central player in a coordinated criminal scheme.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the drugging was part of the coordinated plan, making the appellant culpable under s. 21(1) or s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal sentence and reduced the concurrent sentence for administering a noxious substance from six years to one year, as the original sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.

The global sentence remained unaffected.

The applicant, Michael Francis, brought a motion for severance from his co-accused, Diane Campbell, in a joint criminal proceeding.

Francis, who had been in custody since February 2024, argued that significant prejudice would result from delays caused by Campbell's failure to secure legal representation.

The Crown and Campbell opposed the severance, citing concerns about inconsistent verdicts and the compellability of Campbell as a witness.

The court, applying the factors for severance outlined in R. v. Last, found that the prejudice to Francis, particularly his prolonged detention, outweighed the potential prejudice to the Crown and Campbell or the administration of justice.

The motion for severance was granted.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for manslaughter and robbery, appealed his designation as a high-risk accused (HRA) under s. 672.64(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's discretionary decision, considering the appellant's extensive history of severe mental disorder, repetitive violent behaviour against strangers, and treatment resistance.

The court found the trial judge's conclusion that there was a substantial likelihood of the appellant using violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of firearm possession and drug trafficking and appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal argued that the information to obtain a search warrant (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds, specifically alleging the affiant misled the Justice of the Peace (JP) regarding the appellant's address and failed to establish reasonable grounds for drugs at his residence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the reviewing judge misapprehended one argument, it was immaterial as police observations provided sufficient grounds for the search warrant.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded credit for time served, and the Court granted enhanced credit (1.5:1) for 145 days, resulting in 217 days credit.

The sentence appeal was allowed.

The accused, Timothy Cormier, was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault in relation to the stabbing of his sister.

He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, and the trial proceeded on the attempted murder count.

The central issue was whether the accused possessed the specific intent to kill.

The court considered evidence of the accused's cognitive deficits, history of epilepsy, brain surgery, and a fixed delusional belief regarding the victim.

Despite these factors, the court found that the accused's actions, including bringing a concealed knife, the nature of the attack (multiple stabs to vital areas), his stated motive (considering abortion to be murder), and his post-offence conduct (disposing of evidence and lying to police/doctors), demonstrated a specific intent to kill.

The court rejected the accused's exculpatory statements as untruthful.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder.

The defendants, jointly charged with firearms offences, brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant and exclude seized firearms.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to search the specific condominium unit where the firearms were found, thus quashing the warrant and finding a Section 8 Charter breach.

However, applying the Grant test, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the seriousness of the offences, the police's good faith, and the reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of kidnapping, extortion, using an imitation firearm, administering a noxious substance, aggravated assault, fraud, and failing to comply with probation.

The victim was held for 12-14 hours, extorted, and tortured with boiling liquid, resulting in severe burns.

The Crown sought 12 years, while the defence sought 7-8 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, reduced from 11 years due to mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (lockdowns and COVID-19) and restrictive bail conditions.

After applying Summers credit, the remaining sentence was 7 years and 3 months.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, extortion, aggravated assault, and other offences following the targeted abduction and torture of the complainant.

The Crown's case on identity was entirely circumstantial, relying on video surveillance, financial transactions using the accused's account, and fingerprint evidence found in the complainant's stolen vehicle.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence established the accused's identity as a central participant in the kidnapping beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, either as a principal, aider, or party to a common intention.

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal and a stay of proceedings in a multi-accused robbery trial, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence and granting a stay for lost evidence.

The respondents cross-appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence due to insufficient reasons and in granting a stay without assessing prejudice.

The Crown's appeal was granted, setting aside the acquittals and stay, and ordering a new trial on those counts.

The respondents' cross-appeals against conviction were dismissed as the similar act rulings had benefited them or were consented to, and other grounds lacked merit.

Jason Hadfield was found guilty of robbery and manslaughter.

The Crown applied to have him found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder and designated as a high-risk accused (HRA).

Both parties agreed on the NCR finding due to schizophrenia.

The court then considered the HRA designation, which the defence resisted.

The court reviewed the nature of the offences, the accused's repetitive violent behaviour, current mental condition, past treatment, and expert opinions.

The court found a substantial likelihood that the accused, if unrestrained and untreated, would use violence endangering others.

Consequently, the accused was designated a high-risk accused, requiring detention in a hospital with strict conditions on absence.