211 total
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition quashed as moot.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.
The parties agreed that the Review Board's decision had no current effect or consequence for the appellant, as it was effectively erased by a subsequent decision of Trotter J. The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal.
Appeal allowed to vary Ontario Review Board detention order by removing 'supervised accommodation' requirement.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order that required him to live in 'supervised accommodation' if living in the community.
The Court of Appeal found the Board did not act unreasonably in imposing a detention order, but erred in unilaterally imposing the 'supervised accommodation' term without allowing submissions on its meaning, need, or availability.
The appeal was allowed to vary the order, removing the 'supervised accommodation' requirement but directing that the appellant not reside with his father.
Appeal allowed; Review Board erred by exceeding the scope of the Court's remittal order.
Previously, the Court of Appeal had substituted a conditional discharge and remitted the matter to the Board solely to determine the appropriate conditions.
The Board, however, engaged in a broader inquiry and postponed the appellant's mandatory annual review.
The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred in interpreting the previous order, thereby denying the appellant procedural fairness and his right to an annual review under s. 672.81 of the Criminal Code.
The Court declined to grant an absolute discharge due to an insufficient record and remitted the matter to a differently constituted panel of the Board for an immediate full hearing.
Appeal of Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention in a medium secure unit dismissed.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium secure unit.
The appellant argued that the disposition was unreasonable, that the Board failed to consider the statutory factors, that the reasons were inadequate, and that a treatment impasse had been reached.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable given the significant escalation in the appellant's aggressive and threatening behaviour and the expert evidence supporting the need for a higher security level.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as the decision was reasonable and supported by evidence.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that rejected a conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal found that, aside from a comment regarding the appellant being treatment consent incapable, the Board's decision was reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
Review Board detention order set aside and absolute discharge granted as NCR accused posed no significant threat.
The appellant, who had previously been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a mental health facility.
The Review Board had concluded that the appellant posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, largely based on his history of medication non-compliance and marijuana use leading to mental deterioration.
The Court of Appeal found that the Review Board's conclusion was unreasonable, as the attending psychiatrist's opinion was uncertain and the appellant's history did not demonstrate a significant likelihood of physical violence.
The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.
Appeal from Review Board allowed and conditional release ordered due to misapprehended evidence and incomplete inquiries.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred by failing to direct that necessary inquiries regarding the appellant's mother becoming an 'approved person' be finalized forthwith, as required by Winko.
The Board also misapprehended evidence by stating the appellant had no track record in the community, when in fact he had successfully completed several unescorted passes.
The Court substituted an order for conditional release and remitted the matter to the Board to determine appropriate conditions.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed based on fresh evidence of appellant's relapse.
The Court of Appeal noted merit in the argument that the Board improperly focused on the risk of the appellant breaching a release order rather than the risk to public safety.
However, based on fresh evidence that the appellant had relapsed into substance abuse and was returned to the institution, the Court declined to interfere with the Board's order.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting the appellant could renew his argument for a conditional discharge at his next Board hearing.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; appellant continues to pose significant threat to public safety.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety and in denying a conditional discharge.
The appellant had killed his parents while in a severe psychotic state caused by schizophrenia and cannabis use.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, noting the appellant had only been living in the community for seven months and was exposed to a peer group using cannabis.
The Court found it was open to the Board to insist on a greater history of independent compliance before granting a conditional discharge.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; hospital urged to provide linguistic assistance.
The appellant appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's disposition and agreed that certain comments did not need to be incorporated into the formal order.
The Court urged the hospital to make best efforts to obtain linguistic assistance for the appellant to meaningfully participate in rehabilitative efforts.
Appeal of Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as moot due to subsequent disposition.
The applicant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the disposition had been overtaken by a subsequent disposition of the Board.
The court found no pressing issue of law to justify proceeding with the appeal.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as the decision was not unreasonable.
The hospital had supported a condition permitting the appellant to live in the community, but the Board did not grant it.
The Court of Appeal found no error of law and held that the Board's decision was not unreasonable.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting the appellant's progress and expressing hope for further rehabilitation at his next hearing.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board decision dismissed as abandoned after appellant failed to appear.
The appellant failed to appear for his appeal from a 2007 Ontario Review Board decision.
The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting that the 2007 hearing had been superseded by a subsequent hearing in October 2008 that proceeded on a joint submission, and the appellant was now living in the community.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board decision transferring appellant to a maximum secure unit dismissed.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to the maximum secure unit of the Oakridge Mental Health Centre.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision representing the least onerous and restrictive disposition was not unreasonable given the extensive evidence of the appellant's assaultive behaviour and the intractable nature of his illness.
ORB absolute discharge set aside; Board erred by placing onus of proof on hospital.
The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board granting an absolute discharge to an accused found not criminally responsible.
The accused had twice attempted to grab a police officer's gun during suicidal episodes.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by placing an onus on the hospital to prove the accused posed a significant risk to the public.
The Court also held that the Board's conclusion that the accused did not pose a significant risk was unreasonable, speculative, and contrary to the uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence regarding her impulsivity and lack of insight.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; appellant's continued detention in minimum secure setting upheld.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his status in a minimum secure setting, deleted a condition permitting community living, and denied his request for an absolute or conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the community, noting his recent elopement, failure to take medication, and lack of insight.
The court held that the Board did not err in rejecting the options of an absolute or conditional discharge.
Appeal abandoned.
The appellant abandoned his appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as the majority's reasons were not unreasonable.
The Board had issued a split decision regarding the appellant's security level and privileges.
The Court of Appeal found that while the case was complex and there was some ambiguity in the evidence, the majority's reasons were not unreasonable.
The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that a fresh review hearing was scheduled shortly where the appellant's needs and progress could be reassessed.
Appeal challenging victim notification requirements dismissed for mootness as the appellant had already received an absolute discharge.
The appellant, who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, applied for a declaration restricting the interpretation of the victim notification requirements under s. 672.5(13.2) of the Criminal Code and challenging their constitutional validity.
The Ontario Review Board had previously adjourned his hearings to notify potential victims, but eventually granted him an absolute discharge when no victims were found.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for mootness, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the appellant had already been discharged and there was no factual record involving actual victims to properly determine the statutory and constitutional issues.
Ontario Review Board granted leave to intervene in appeal to explain general panel assignment practices.
The Ontario Review Board brought a motion for leave to intervene in an appeal.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion on several conditions, including that the Board take no position on the merits of the appeal or the specific allegations of bias, but rather explain its general practices regarding the assignment of panel members.
