The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's decision to deny an absolute discharge to an NCR accused, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.
The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision to continue his conditional discharge and deny his Charter application for an absolute discharge.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and refusal to grant an absolute discharge were reasonable and supported by the evidence.
The court also found no Charter breach, as the Board’s decision was based on public safety, not resource limitations.
The Court of Appeal granted an absolute discharge, finding the Review Board unreasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety.
The appellant, Victoria Frazer, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board which concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered her continued conditional discharge.
The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she did not pose a significant threat.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion was unreasonable and relied too heavily on speculation regarding potential medication non-compliance and substance use.
Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and granted the appellant an absolute discharge.
The court dismissed the appeal from the Ontario Review Board, finding no basis for a conditional discharge.
The appellant, Donald Snoek, appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him a significant risk to public safety.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for a conditional discharge at this time and holding that arguments about alternative conditions should be made at a future hearing before the Board.
The Court of Appeal quashed a Review Board's unfitness finding because the Board failed to apply the fitness test contextually.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Ernest Clayton’s appeal from a Review Board disposition finding him unfit and “permanently unfit” to stand trial.
The court held that the Board failed to apply the fitness test contextually, as required by law, and did not consider relevant evidence about the simplicity of the charges and Clayton’s ability to understand and respond to them.
The Board’s finding of permanent unfitness was also unsupported by sufficient reasons.
The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new determination of fitness.
The court upheld a Review Board detention order requiring hospital-approved housing to manage safety risks.
This decision concerns an appeal by Iesha Mitchell from a detention order imposed by the Ontario Review Board.
The Board had found that, although Mitchell could live in the community with certain privileges, her housing required approval by the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and that the Mental Health Act alone would not be sufficient to manage her risk to public safety.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board’s reasoning, holding that the evidence supported the need for approved housing and a detention order, given the subtlety of Mitchell’s decompensation and the need for prompt intervention.
The appeal was dismissed.
Review Board ordered transfer of NCR accused to Ontario Shores while maintaining community living privileges.
The Ontario Review Board held an early hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.
The hospital requested a transfer of the accused to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences due to resource limitations in supervising him in the Durham Region.
The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, primarily due to the risk of relapse into cannabis use and subsequent psychosis.
The Board ordered the transfer to Ontario Shores and continued the detention order with community living privileges in the Durham Region.
Detention order continued for NCR accused who remains a significant threat to public safety.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats.
The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, resides in transitional housing and continues to experience significant delusional ideation.
The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as he lacks insight into his illness and would likely disengage from care and become verbally threatening if discharged.
The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order to allow the hospital to manage his transition to permanent housing, while removing the urine drug screen requirement and reducing the reporting frequency.
Detention disposition continued for NCR accused to manage significant threat during gradual community reintegration.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and weapons offences.
The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders, had been stable and was preparing for a gradual return to community living.
The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety if she decompensates.
The Board ordered the continuation of a detention disposition to manage the risk while supporting her reintegration.
Detention disposition renewed for NCR accused who continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.
The treating psychiatrist provided uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychosis and a history of substance use, which are currently managed by medication and abstinence in a hospital setting.
The Board applied the Winko test and concluded that absent a detention disposition, the accused would likely decompensate and re-offend.
The Board ordered a renewal of the current detention disposition, noting that discharge planning is underway.
The Court of Appeal quashed a community treatment order, holding that the Mental Health Act requires a pattern of successful treatment during a prior hospitalization.
The appellant, Douglas Naus, appealed an order confirming a Consent and Capacity Board decision that he was incapable of consenting to treatment and subject to a community treatment order (CTO) requiring antipsychotic medication.
The Court of Appeal found the appeal from the incapacity finding was moot, but exercised its discretion to decide the CTO issue, holding that the Board and appeal judge erred in interpreting the statutory preconditions for a CTO.
The Court held that the Mental Health Act requires successful treatment to have occurred during a prior hospitalization, not the current one, before a CTO can be issued.
The CTO was quashed.
Conditional discharge continued with reduced reporting frequency for NCR accused who remains a significant threat.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and attempt kidnapping.
The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, remains stable in the community but continues to hold fixed delusional beliefs and intends to stop his antipsychotic medication once no longer under the Board's jurisdiction.
The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to his existing conditional discharge, but reduced his minimum reporting requirement to once every three months.
Accused found to remain a significant threat to public safety; conditional discharge continued with varied terms.
The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm against an intimate partner, appeared for an annual review of his conditional discharge.
The Ontario Review Board considered expert evidence and the joint recommendation of the parties.
The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of violence, partial insight, and risk of relapse into psychosis.
The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with varied conditions regarding reporting frequency and travel.
Accused found to remain a significant threat; continued detention ordered with transfer to CAMH.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and other offences.
The accused has diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder and Cannabis Disorder.
The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, noting that his mental state deteriorates and his risk increases when he uses cannabis.
The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, and granted the accused's request for a transfer to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to better support his reintegration and access to community resources.
Review Board detention order set aside and absolute discharge granted due to lack of significant threat.
The appellant was found not criminally responsible for several offences committed during an acute episode of delirium.
The Ontario Review Board subsequently issued a detention order, finding he posed a significant threat to public safety.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it failed to identify evidence meeting the high threshold for a significant threat and failed in its inquisitorial duty to probe the equivocal evidence.
The appeal was allowed, the detention order was set aside, and an absolute discharge was granted.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; conditional discharge maintained due to ongoing risk to public safety.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.
He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and should be granted an absolute discharge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant required a longer transition period in independent living to ensure medication compliance and mental stability.
The Court of Appeal amended a Review Board disposition to include a community living term.
The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for manslaughter, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order for failing to include a community living term.
The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it did not adequately balance all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, specifically the appellant's reintegration into society and mental condition, beyond public safety concerns.
The court emphasized the importance of including a community living term to address housing waitlists and facilitate long-term reintegration, even if not immediately exercisable, especially when there is no evidence of public safety risk.
The appeal was allowed, and the disposition order was amended to include a community living term with conditions.
The Court of Appeal upheld an NCRMD detention order but struck two unreasonably restrictive conditions regarding accommodation and communication.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition.
The appellant challenged the Board's decision to issue a detention order instead of a conditional discharge, and argued that two specific conditions of the detention order were overly restrictive.
The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable given the appellant's significant threat to public safety and the joint submission of the parties.
However, the court found two conditions to be unreasonably restrictive: the requirement for "supervised" accommodation and the need for hospital consent for communication with his mother in addition to her own consent.
The appeal was allowed in part, striking the word "supervised" from the accommodation condition and removing the hospital consent requirement from the communication condition.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's decision to continue a detention order for an NCR accused.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for serious sexual assault and assault charges, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention order.
The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was the least onerous and restrictive option given his recent progress in managing his mental disorder and substance use.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly the psychiatrist's view that a detention order was necessary for rapid intervention in case of relapse, given the appellant's history of substance abuse and associated violence.
The court emphasized the Board's obligation to protect public safety and the high standard for overturning Board decisions.
The court upheld the Review Board's detention order for an Indigenous NCR accused.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR), appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention.
The appellant argued the Board erred in assessing his risk of harm, in not ordering a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition, and in its application of Gladue principles.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's conclusions regarding the appellant's significant risk due to treatment-resistant psychosis and substance use, the lack of suitable community supports for a conditional discharge, and that Gladue principles were appropriately considered by the Board in its analysis, even if they did not lead to a different disposition.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Review Board's reasonable finding that the appellant remained a significant public threat.
David Grant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for harassment and breach of peace bond due to bipolar disorder and delusions, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition.
The Board denied his request for an absolute discharge, continuing his detention with privileges at a forensic mental health care centre, and imposing contact restrictions.
Grant argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant public threat, lacking evidence for a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious criminal offence if discharged.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's expertise and finding its risk assessment reasonable, given Grant's continued delusions, cannabis use exacerbating his condition, and consistent fixation on the victim, concluding he would likely re-engage in criminal behaviour without supervision.
