Appeal from a finding of incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication dismissed.
The appellant, an involuntary patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his physician's finding that he was incapable of making treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic medication.
The appellant denied his diagnosis and refused medication.
The reviewing judge upheld the Board's conclusion that the appellant lacked the ability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision due to his persecutorial delusions and inability to recognize his condition.
Independent housing assessment was properly refused as premature.
Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning a person under the Board’s jurisdiction who had been approved for supervised community living but had not yet secured an appropriate placement.
The Board expanded the permitted geographic scope of community accommodation to Southern Ontario but declined to order an independent housing assessment, finding the request premature in light of ongoing placement efforts.
The Court of Appeal found no error in that approach and dismissed the appeal.
The court added that, if housing is still not secured by the next review hearing, the Board should engage its inquisitorial mandate and require further evidence, expert or otherwise, on the housing challenges.
Brief but sufficient Board reasons supported continued detention.
Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing a detention order for a not criminally responsible accused who sought an absolute discharge.
The appellant argued that the Board’s reasons were insufficient, that its significant-threat finding was unreasonable, and that it misapprehended the treating psychiatrist’s evidence regarding medication compliance and substance abstinence.
The Court of Appeal held that, although the Board’s analysis was brief and imperfect, the reasons read as a whole and in light of the record adequately explained why the appellant remained a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The court found the risk assessment was grounded in evidence of poor insight, prior failed community placement, substance-use history connected to the index offence, and the very recent return to community living.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal from Review Board detention order dismissed; finding of significant threat to public safety was reasonable.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a psychiatric hospital.
The Board found that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, ongoing substance abuse, and history of relapses leading to acute psychosis and violence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and well-supported by the psychiatric evidence.
Initial restriction of liberties justified by decompensation, but ongoing restrictions became unnecessary once patient stabilized.
The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberties imposed on the accused, a patient at a mental health centre.
The hospital had suspended the accused's privileges and transferred him to a secure unit following medication non-compliance, decompensation, and aggressive behaviour.
The Board found that the initial restrictions and transfer were necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive options available at the time.
However, the Board concluded that the ongoing restrictions ceased to be necessary and appropriate in the days leading up to the hearing, as the accused had stabilized and returned to baseline.
The Board directed that the accused be transferred back to a general ward and that less restrictive measures be enabled.
Conditional discharge continued for NCR accused who remains a significant threat to public safety.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge disposition.
The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and attempted kidnapping, suffers from delusional disorder and remains stable on antipsychotic medication.
The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, largely because he would discontinue his medication if not supervised.
The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the same conditions, denying the accused's request to reduce his reporting frequency.
Detention order continued for NCR accused who remains a significant threat due to schizophrenia and cannabis use.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for mischief and assault with a weapon.
The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had been living in the community under a detention order but continued to use cannabis daily and had a recent altercation with his daughter.
Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with an added condition for more frequent reporting to effectively manage his risk in the community.
Appeal allowed; Board failed to adequately consider whether proposed conditional discharge conditions could manage public risk.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed a detention order made by the Ontario Review Board.
She argued the Board failed to adequately consider her proposal for a conditional discharge that included a 'Young clause' and treatment compliance conditions.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board must meaningfully consider whether the proposed conditions could practically and effectively address the risk to the public, and remitted the matter for a new hearing.
Conditional discharge maintained for NCR accused who continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory review of his conditional discharge.
The majority of the Board found that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, narcissistic personality traits, and the risk of decompensation under stress.
The Board maintained his conditional discharge but reduced his reporting requirement to not less than once each month.
A dissenting member would have found that he no longer represents a significant threat and granted an absolute discharge.
Accused found NCR granted Conditional Discharge after successful transition to permanent supportive housing.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats.
The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and experiences pervasive bizarre and grandiose delusions.
While the accused has not engaged in physical violence since 2008, he has a history of threatening behaviour and lacks insight into his illness.
The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.
However, noting his successful transition to permanent supportive housing and compliance with long-acting injectable medication, the Board ordered a Conditional Discharge subject to conditions including a residency requirement and abstinence from non-medical intoxicants other than cannabis.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board detention order dismissed as reasonable.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a mental health centre with conditions, arguing he should have been conditionally discharged.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight, medication non-compliance, and intimidation of his treatment team.
The court also rejected the argument that a recent appellate decision setting aside a prior conviction undermined the Board's disposition, as the Board relied on the appellant's own testimony regarding the underlying incident.
Review Board grants absolute discharge to NCR accused, finding risk of cannabis-induced psychosis relapse speculative.
The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and attempted murder due to a cannabis-induced psychotic disorder.
The hospital and the Attorney General argued that the accused remained a significant threat and sought a conditional discharge, citing concerns about potential relapse under stress.
The Board found that the accused had been free of psychosis and abstinent from cannabis for several years, maintained stable housing and employment, and pursued education.
Concluding that the risk of reoffending was speculative and unsupported by evidence, the Board found the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and ordered an absolute discharge.
Accused found unfit to stand trial; continued detention and independent assessment ordered.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review for an accused found unfit to stand trial on an assault charge.
The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and experiences command hallucinations, has been detained in a high-secure forensic program and kept in seclusion due to unpredictable physical aggression.
The Board found that the accused remained unfit to stand trial and ordered his continued detention at the hospital as the necessary and appropriate disposition.
Additionally, the Board ordered an independent assessment by a criminologist to provide new perspectives on managing the accused's condition and reducing his seclusion, with an early review hearing to follow.
Detention Order continued; hospital criticized for failing to provide timely Restriction of Liberty notice.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible.
The accused had her pass privileges drastically reduced by the hospital after a single relapse into substance use, and the hospital failed to provide a timely ROL notice.
The Board continued the Detention Order, finding the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, but strongly criticized the hospital for failing to provide timely notice and for automatically reducing privileges in a manner that ignored the accused's liberty interests.
Accused found to remain a significant threat to public safety; detention order continued.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.
The accused, now a dual-status offender serving a federal sentence for assaulting hospital staff, was recently transferred to a federal institution in British Columbia.
The parties jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.
The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the accused continues to pose a significant threat, and ordered the continuation of his detention order at the secure forensic hospital.
Restriction of liberty upheld and detention disposition ordered to facilitate accused's transfer to another hospital.
The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty and conduct an annual review of his disposition.
The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for arson and assault with a weapon, had his liberty restricted by the hospital due to repeated aggressive and assaultive behaviour towards staff.
The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least restrictive option available.
The Board also concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.
A detention disposition was ordered with flexible terms to facilitate the accused's urgently needed transfer to another facility, which would better meet his mental health and dietary needs.
Absolute discharge granted to NCR appellant; Board's finding of significant threat was unsupported by evidence.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for index offences in 2004, appealed a conditional discharge disposition by the Ontario Review Board.
The Board had concluded he remained a significant threat to public safety due to his historical substance abuse and lack of a formal community treatment plan.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion unreasonable given the appellant's years of stability, sobriety, medication adherence, and independent living.
The Court ordered an absolute discharge, emphasizing that the threshold for significant threat is onerous and cannot be based on speculative risks or what is merely in the appellant's best medical interests.
Review Board orders Conditional Discharge for NCR accused who remains a significant threat to public safety.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for violent offences due to schizophrenia.
The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the attending psychiatrist that the accused has made significant progress in insight and medication compliance but remains a significant threat to public safety.
The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge as the necessary and appropriate disposition.
Accused's detention continued with transfer to medium-secure facility; request to review high-risk designation denied.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder and designated a high-risk offender.
The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention.
However, recognizing his clinical progress, the Board approved a joint recommendation to transfer him from a high-secure to a medium-secure forensic facility with increased privileges, including escorted community passes.
The Board dismissed the accused's request to refer his high-risk offender designation back to the Superior Court for removal, finding that his progress had not been significantly impeded by the designation and the threshold for referral was not met.
Ontario Review Board denies absolute discharge, finding NCR accused remains a significant threat to public safety.
The accused, previously found NCR for violent offences including intimate partner violence, was subject to an annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.
The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, supported by the treating psychiatrist who opined the accused's schizophrenia was in remission.
The Attorney General opposed.
The Board rejected the hospital's recommendation, finding that the accused's history of serial violence, superficial insight, and recent alcohol use in breach of his disposition demonstrated he remained a significant threat to public safety.
A conditional discharge was ordered.
