Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; finding of significant threat to public safety upheld.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in concluding he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on all the circumstances.
Appeal of Ontario Review Board conditional discharge dismissed; appellant remains a significant threat to public safety.
The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board that granted him a conditional discharge, arguing he should have received an absolute discharge.
The appellant contended the Board erred in finding he represented a significant threat to public safety.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's unanimous decision, which relied on evidence that the appellant would pose a significant risk without the control of a conditional discharge.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; appellant remains a significant risk to public safety.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety.
The Court also found the Board's decision to detain the appellant on a secure unit rather than a general unit or via a hybrid order was reasonable given concerns about her risk of going AWOL and assaultive behaviour.
Appeal of Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as reasonable despite appellant's alibi.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, relying on an alibi.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable despite the alibi evidence.
Appeal of Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; appellant remains a significant threat to public safety.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge or, alternatively, permission to live in the community.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.
The court rejected the argument that there was a treatment impasse, noting that the diagnosis had been clarified and the treatment team was trying different approaches.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; detention in minimum security upheld.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention in a minimum security facility.
She sought an absolute discharge or unsupervised community access.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant posed a danger to the public and that the disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive option.
Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's absence without leave and refusal to take medication was admitted but ultimately supported the Board's decision.
Finding of incapacity set aside as unreasonable due to lack of evidence regarding treatment benefits.
The appellant appealed a decision upholding a finding of incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.
The Court of Appeal found that the Consent and Capacity Board's decision was unreasonable because there was no evidence that the proposed treatment would benefit the appellant, nor any evidence of the consequences of refusing treatment.
The appeal was allowed and the finding of incapacity was set aside.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; conditional discharge continued as appellant posed significant threat without medication.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his conditional discharge.
He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to order a Community Treatment Order (CTO) instead.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on psychiatric evidence that the appellant would stop his medication and become a threat if absolutely discharged.
The Court also noted the Board lacked jurisdiction to order a CTO, as only a physician can issue one under the Mental Health Act.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; conditional discharge upheld due to risk of medication non-compliance.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.
The appellant argued he did not pose a significant threat to public safety.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded based on expert evidence that the appellant would stop his medication if unsupervised, quickly decompensate, and pose a significant risk of harm to the public.
Review Board disposition upheld as reasonable.
Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.
The appellant challenged the reasonableness of a detention order and a 50 km radius restriction requiring proximity to the hospital.
The court held that the disposition was supported by the record and reflected the least restrictive disposition agreed to by the parties before the Board.
Although fresh evidence showed the appellant was doing well, that progress was for the next Board hearing and did not render the earlier disposition unreasonable.
Appeal of Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as moot.
The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board.
With the advice of counsel, the appellant chose to proceed with a review of that disposition instead.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.
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.
