Angelo Minardi

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

The accused had been found not criminally responsible for firearms offences.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist, finding that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his substance-induced psychotic disorder and partial insight.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with increased privileges, including passes into Southwestern Ontario, and removed the strict abstinence requirement to assess his ability to manage substance use in the community.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for firearms offences and breach of a release order.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the parties jointly submitted that he remained a significant threat to public safety and should be subject to a detention order.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused's substance use disorder and potential primary psychotic disorder required ongoing treatment in a hospital setting to manage his risk of violence.

This sentencing decision addresses the sexual interference conviction of M.B., who pleaded guilty to sexually abusing his four-year-old niece.

The court considered the offender's background, mental health issues, and the serious nature of the offence, including the offender's exploitation of a position of trust and the lasting impact on the victim.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child sexual abuse offences, and imposed a custodial sentence of two years less one day, followed by probation and ancillary orders.

The Crown sought direction from the court regarding the defendant's eligibility for a preliminary inquiry for sexual offences alleged to have occurred during a period that straddled a legislative amendment increasing maximum sentences.

The court considered the interplay of the Criminal Code amendments, particularly Bill C-75, and section 11(i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court ruled that if there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant could be found guilty of criminal conduct that took place entirely after the sentencing amendment, they are potentially exposed to the higher maximum sentence and are therefore entitled to request a preliminary inquiry.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking the complainant repeatedly with a knife in her vehicle.

The accused claimed self-defence, testifying that the intoxicated complainant became aggressive, punched the vehicle's interior, took her phone, and lunged at her.

The court found an air of reality to the defence and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not reasonably believe she was under threat of force, or that her response was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was found not guilty.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's attendance at an illegal gaming house and her failure to disclose a past criminal charge and police investigation on her application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly attended an illegal gaming house on several occasions, demonstrating a willingness to contravene the law regarding legal gambling.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe she would not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with the law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest, and confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration.