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.
The appeal was dismissed.
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 appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.
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The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting that the 2007 hearing had been superseded by a subsequent hearing in October 2008 that proceeded on a joint submission, and the appellant was now living in the community.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.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition transferring appellant to maximum security facility dismissed as reasonable.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from a medium security facility to the maximum security facility at Oak Ridge.
The Court of Appeal held that the Board's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on evidence from hospital staff that the appellant could no longer be managed in a medium secure setting.
The court noted that intervening events and further medical evidence justified the change from a previous order.
The appeal was dismissed, though the court noted the appellant could request an early review to determine if management techniques used at Oak Ridge could be applied in a medium security facility.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; appellant remains a substantial danger to the public.
The appellant appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which concluded that he continued to present a real and substantial danger to the public.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's focus on the risk the appellant posed to the community and agreed with its conclusion based on the evidence.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; denial of absolute discharge despite joint submission was reasonable.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board's decision to deny an absolute discharge was unreasonable, reversed the burden of proof, and breached procedural fairness by rejecting a joint submission without express notice.
The hospital's doctor had recommended an absolute discharge, which was supported by both the appellant and the Crown.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's lack of a track record of remission and programming for substance abuse.
The Court also found no reversal of the burden of proof and held that the Board's questioning provided sufficient notice of its concerns regarding the joint submission.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board detention order dismissed; finding of significant risk to public upheld.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board which found he continued to pose a significant risk to the public and ordered his detention.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample medical evidence to support the Board's determination regarding the appellant's harassing behaviour.
The majority held that the Board's conditions for detention and its decision not to order a transfer to another facility were reasonable.
A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board to explore less restrictive placements.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; appellant's refusal to attend justified proceeding in his absence.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing he was denied due process and Charter rights because he was not present at his hearing and was not appointed counsel.
The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had refused to appear and refused to sign documents for counsel, making it open to the Board to proceed in his absence.
The Court also upheld the Board's decision to keep the appellant in a restrictive ward due to his continued denial of mental illness, refusal of treatment, and disruptive conduct.
Appeal allowed and absolute discharge granted where Review Board's finding of significant threat was unreasonable.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of insanity in 1981, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision refusing him an absolute discharge.
The Board had concluded he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to concerns about alcohol abuse and personality disorder.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as it was contrary to the evidence of his treatment team and unsupported by the record.
The court set aside the Board's order and granted the appellant an absolute discharge.
A patient's refusal of psychiatric medication upheld; capacity test does not require agreement with physician's diagnosis.
The respondent, who suffers from bipolar disorder, refused proposed medical treatment.
The attending physician found him incapable of making this decision, and the Consent and Capacity Board confirmed this finding.
On judicial review, the Superior Court of Justice overturned the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable and based on a misapplication of the statutory test for capacity.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of incapacity was unreasonable because it conflated the respondent's best interests with his capacity to decide, and failed to recognize that the respondent understood his condition and the consequences of refusing treatment.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed as supported by sufficient expert evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, including clear expert opinion on continuing danger, risk assessment, and the appellant's ability to manage his behaviour, to support the Board's decision.
Failure to give the Attorney General notice of a constitutional question invalidates the resulting Charter remedy.
The respondent was found incapable of consenting to treatment and appealed the decision.
The motions judge, on her own motion, found that the respondent had a constitutional right under s. 7 of the Charter to publicly-funded counsel and ordered the government to pay his legal fees.
The Attorney General was not given formal notice of the constitutional question before the order was made.
The Attorney General appealed and brought a preliminary motion to declare the order invalid.
The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act is mandatory and the failure to give notice invalidates the decision.
