Conditional discharge granted for NCR accused with schizophrenia, subject to a Young clause and treatment conditions.
The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences and was detained at a psychiatric hospital.
Following a successful appeal of his detention order, the Ontario Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the Ontario Review Board for a new hearing.
The Board found that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia and housing instability, his risk could be adequately managed in the community.
The Board ordered a conditional discharge with strict terms, including a consent to treatment condition and a Young clause requiring him to attend the hospital for assessment if requested.
Fresh psychiatric evidence justified absolute discharge in NCRMD disposition appeal.
The appellant challenged an annual Review Board disposition that maintained a conditional discharge based on a finding of significant threat to public safety.
On appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, the court admitted post-hearing psychiatric evidence showing medication discontinuation without decompensation, a revised diagnosis, and a materially lower structured risk assessment.
Applying the interests of justice framework for fresh evidence in NCRMD appeals, the court held the new record required allowing the appeal.
The court found remittal unnecessary because an absolute discharge was the only reasonable disposition on the updated evidence.
Detention order and cannabis prohibition maintained for NCR accused who continues to pose a significant threat.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and other offences.
The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and severe cannabis use disorder, requested a transfer to a different hospital and the removal of a cannabis prohibition from his disposition.
Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as his cannabis use exacerbates his psychotic symptoms and increases his risk of violence.
The Board maintained the detention order and the cannabis prohibition, but granted the accused's request to transfer his care to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton.
Appeal allowed following review of the challenged order and legal framework.
The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.
The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal allowed.
Review Board disposition upheld regarding secure unit detention and electronics supervision, but privileges clauses reinstated.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit and retaining an electronics supervision clause.
The appellant argued the disposition was not the least onerous and restrictive option and that the Board improperly rejected a joint submission to remove the electronics clause.
The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the Board's decisions reasonable given the appellant's recent elopements and worsening auditory hallucinations.
However, the appeal was allowed in part to reinstate clauses for indirectly supervised and accompanied privileges, which the Board had mistakenly removed.
NCR detention order set aside; Board failed to properly assess conditional discharge and housing alternatives.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) and detained at CAMH, appealed a Review Board disposition continuing his detention despite being designated as alternate level of care.
The appellant proposed a conditional discharge with a Young clause and treatment compliance conditions, or alternatively, living with family due to a lack of community housing.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board failed to properly consider the proposed safeguards, did not adequately inquire into family accommodation, and based its risk assessment on speculative concerns and unsupported assumptions.
The Court also overturned its previous decision in Negash regarding the enforceability of hospital readmission under section 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code.
The matter was remitted for a new hearing.
Accused remains unfit to stand trial due to ongoing psychotic symptoms impairing communication and understanding.
The accused was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder and referred to the Ontario Review Board.
At the initial hearing, the primary issue was whether the accused had become fit to stand trial.
The Board heard evidence from the accused's treating psychiatrist that she continues to experience psychotic symptoms, disorganization, and struggles to understand the trial process and consequences despite fitness coaching.
The Board applied the legal test for fitness and concluded that the accused remains unfit to stand trial.
A Detention Order on terms was issued.
Court ordered NCRMD patient's transfer, finding Review Board unreasonably ignored least restrictive disposition standard.
An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision refusing his transfer from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre back to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.
The appellant, aged 69 with schizoaffective disorder, pedophilic disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning, had been under the Board's jurisdiction since 1998.
After transferring to the Royal Ottawa in November 2024, he faced significantly enhanced liberty restrictions, including confinement to his ward and a pureed food diet due to choking risk.
The Board refused the transfer request, citing the brief duration of his stay and concerns about therapeutic alliance.
The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that it improperly focused on the appellant's best interests rather than the statutory "least onerous and least restrictive" standard.
The court ordered the transfer to Ontario Shores.
The Court upheld a Review Board detention order to manage the appellant's risk of relapse.
The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital.
The appellant sought a conditional discharge with terms requiring attendance and voluntary readmission.
The Board found that continued detention was necessary as the least onerous and restrictive disposition given the appellant's significant threat to public safety, chronic drug-induced psychosis, severe addiction, and need for supervised community reintegration.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was supported by expert evidence regarding the necessity of hospital-approved housing and the inadequacy of Mental Health Act provisions for rapid intervention.
Detention order continued for NCR accused; request for pre-transfer hospital visit denied for lack of jurisdiction.
The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and weapons offences.
The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, sought a transfer to a general unit or a pre-transfer visit to his designated destination hospital.
The Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his history of non-compliance and substance use exacerbating psychotic symptoms.
The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the Forensic Service, expanding his community access privileges, but declined to order a pre-transfer hospital visit citing jurisdictional limits.
Hospital's restriction of NCR accused's liberty, including locked room protocol, upheld as necessary and appropriate.
The hospital requested a Restriction of Liberty hearing after the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, had his hospital privileges cancelled due to agitation, threats, and an assault on a co-patient.
The accused was subsequently placed in seclusion and then a locked room protocol.
The Ontario Review Board found that the hospital's actions in restricting the accused's liberty, including the withdrawal of privileges and placement in a locked room, were necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive course of action given his escalating risk, history of violence, and substance use relapse.
The Board noted the hospital's failure to notify it of the increased restrictions but upheld the ongoing restrictions.
The Court upheld the refusal to add a community living clause to a detention order.
An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 29, 2025, concerning whether the Board erred in declining to add a community living clause to a detention order.
The appellant argued that the majority of the Board focused exclusively on public safety and dismissed the attending psychiatrist's opinion that the clause would be therapeutically beneficial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's majority was entitled to determine that adding a community living clause would be therapeutically harmful on balance in the specific circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the psychiatrist's contrary opinion.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's detention order and denial of U.S. travel passes for an NCR accused.
An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition order dated December 13, 2024.
The appellant sought a conditional discharge or, alternatively, authorization for 14-day travel passes to the United States.
The Board maintained a detention order requiring continued residence at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community housing privileges and extended Canadian travel passes to 14 days.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in law and that the disposition was reasonable and not a miscarriage of justice.
An unreasonable Review Board detention order was set aside for ignoring less restrictive dispositions.
An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining a detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2016 for threats and assault involving an airsoft rifle, had been conditionally discharged in 2020 but returned to detention in 2023.
The Board maintained the detention order based on the appellant's chronic cannabis addiction and the treating psychiatrist's opinion that continued use would create a significant threat to public safety.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and that it failed to meaningfully consider less restrictive dispositions.
The court ordered a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.
Conditional discharge continued with varied terms; accused found to still pose a significant threat.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and failing to comply with probation.
The accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.
The Hospital and Attorney General opposed, recommending a continued conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.
The Board found that despite significant progress and five years of substance abstinence, the accused continued to pose a significant threat due to his schizoaffective disorder, lack of a realistic community support plan, and limited insight into his index offences and potential for violence.
The Board ordered a continuation of the conditional discharge but varied the terms to reduce reporting frequency, remove the specific residence requirement, and remove the mandatory medication condition.
NCR accused found to remain a significant threat; transferred to St. Joseph's under Detention Order.
The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder, underwent an annual review of his Disposition by the Ontario Review Board.
The Board found that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of violence, maladaptive personality traits, and challenging behaviours in the hospital.
Given his complex medical needs and a request to be closer to family, the Board ordered his transfer from CAMH to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton under a Detention Order with specific conditions.
Hospital readmission for cannabis use upheld, but placement on unit without privileges found overly restrictive.
The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, was living in the community under an Ontario Review Board disposition.
Following a positive drug screen for cannabis, the hospital readmitted him pursuant to his treatment plan.
The hospital placed him on a civil psychiatric unit that did not permit off-unit privileges due to a lack of available forensic beds.
The Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty.
The Board found that the initial decision to readmit the accused was necessary and appropriate.
However, the Board concluded that his ongoing detention on a unit where he was denied privileges that would otherwise be available to him on a forensic unit was not the least onerous and restrictive option.
The Court upheld the appellant's detention but mandated the hospital to pursue community housing.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder in 2002, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.
He argued that the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety and in failing to mandate that the hospital actively seek community housing for him.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the Board's finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Board erred by not including a formal condition in its disposition requiring the hospital to exercise all due diligence in securing community housing.
Accused remains a significant threat to public safety; transfer to CAMH ordered to address therapeutic impasse.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.
The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault, suffers from severe Schizoaffective Disorder and continues to experience psychotic symptoms, including command hallucinations.
She has a history of violence and non-compliance with treatment, and currently lacks insight into her illness.
The Board found that she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
Due to a therapeutic impasse at her current hospital, the Board ordered her transfer to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), maintaining her detention order pending the transfer.
Absolute discharge granted as NCR accused no longer poses a significant threat to public safety.
The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition review.
The accused had remained psychiatrically stable in the community for several years, adhered to medication, and maintained employment and pro-social activities.
The treatment team proposed ongoing monitoring by the Forensic Outpatient Service until non-forensic community supports could be established.
Applying the Winko standard, the Board found no positive evidence that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.
The Board ordered an absolute discharge.
