Anita Szigeti

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her detention in custody and rehabilitation at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

Previously, she had been on a conditional discharge but exhibited declining mental stability and inconsistent attendance at appointments.

Despite recommendations from her physician, hospital counsel, and the Crown for a continued conditional discharge, the ORB found she posed a significant public safety threat due to marked deterioration in her stability and past threatening behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's decision as reasonable, emphasizing the ORB's expertise and the need to consider future treatment beyond mere reattendance mechanisms.

The Hospital appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to grant Jeffrey Smith an absolute discharge, arguing it was unreasonable given his history of violence, substance abuse, and limited insight into his mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly given the high standard for finding a "significant threat" and the deference owed to the Board's expertise.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not criminally responsible for violent acts, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention, with community privileges, was the least onerous disposition.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its threat assessment and in ordering detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasoning was supported by evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of insight into her illness and the risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The court also found no error in the Board's decision to impose a more restrictive disposition given the changed circumstances, including the failure of a previous treatment regime.

The appellant, Raymond Mitchell, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his transfer from a medium-security facility to a high-security unit.

He argued the Board erred by not adequately considering Gladue principles and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to transfer reasonable given the appellant's history of disruptive and violent behaviour and public safety risk.

However, the Court noted the Board's consideration of Gladue principles was inadequate, emphasizing the need for a "different method of analysis" for Indigenous individuals in psychiatric facilities, even if it doesn't mandate a different outcome.

Mavis Alexander appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and restricted her privileges to escorted hospital and community access.

The ORB had removed prior conditions allowing for less supervised community access and placement on waitlists for community accommodation, citing her high risk of decompensation, disrobing, and exit-seeking behaviour.

Alexander argued the removal was unreasonable and contrary to Kelly (Re), emphasizing the long waitlists for supportive housing and the therapeutic benefit of such provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's decision.

The Court found the Board's assessment that the conditions lacked an "air of reality" was supported by the evidence, distinguishing the case from Kelly (Re) where community living was therapeutically motivated and not "so unrealistic."

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for arson, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue her conditional discharge with reduced requirements, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board had determined she remained a "significant threat" to public safety due to partial insight into her illness, attempts to negotiate medication reductions, poor sleep hygiene, and a recent involuntary hospitalization with symptoms similar to her index offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion was reasonable and amply supported by the evidence, and that the Board properly considered all evidence, including factors favouring the appellant's absolute discharge, and reduced restrictions accordingly.

The appellant, under the supervision of the Ontario Review Board since 2009 for serious offences, appealed the Board's disposition maintaining his detention at Ontario Shores.

He argued the detention order was not the least onerous or restrictive, seeking a conditional discharge or a rehearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable, particularly its rejection of a conditional discharge due to the appellant's continued need for professional supervision and history of relapse.

The court affirmed that the Board is not required to address every piece of evidence in its reasons.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with privileges, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably determined that a detention order was necessary.

The court emphasized that the Board's decision was based on the brutal nature of the index offence and the need for close monitoring, distinguishing it from cases where expediency alone justified a restrictive disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for robbery in 2006, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board maintained his detention, removed indirectly supervised community privileges, and denied a transfer to another facility, following his conviction for child pornography.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding its refusal to transfer and removal of community access reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight and ongoing risk, deferring to the Board's expertise.

The appellant, Prof. Starson, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in concluding he remained a significant threat to public safety, failing to consider a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition, and providing direction to the Hospital instead of ordering a discharge plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Board's decision.

The court upheld the Board's finding that the appellant lacked insight into his mental illness and would pose a significant public risk without medication, justifying a detention order.

The court also found the Board's direction to the Hospital regarding a discharge plan was appropriate.

Ms. Davies, found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued her detention order and refused a cannabis exemption.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, the court found the Board's refusal to grant the cannabis exemption unreasonable, as it conflated "substances" with "cannabis" and lacked sufficient evidence directly linking cannabis use to a significant public safety risk in a controlled hospital environment.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a rehearing on the cannabis exemption.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, a high-secure facility.

The Board had recommended a transfer to a high-security facility in Quebec but rejected the appellant's request for an interim transfer to a medium-security facility in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of elopement, violent behaviour, and refusal of medication, which posed a significant threat to public safety.

The court upheld the Board's acceptance of the psychiatrist's opinion that the appellant was not suitable for a medium-security transfer at that time, emphasizing public safety as the paramount consideration.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for assault, mischief, and probation breach, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his detention.

The ORB had found he still posed a significant threat due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder, despite no recent assaultive behaviour, because of his inability to manage distress and potential for volatility.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge, or a new hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's assessment of significant risk and its decision not to grant a conditional discharge were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and met the standard of review.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering her detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

She argued the ORB erred in finding she posed a significant threat, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's determination of significant threat was reasonable, based on her history of violence, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight into her illness and medication, and the risk of decompensation leading to violent behaviour if medication ceased.

The court also upheld the ORB's refusal of a conditional discharge, noting its inquisitorial function was fulfilled and a detention order was necessary for public safety, as the Mental Health Act would not provide sufficient control in all foreseeable situations.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed a Review Board disposition maintaining a conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it failed to adequately consider evidence demonstrating the appellant's ability to manage his condition and did not meet the "significant threat to public safety" standard, which is onerous and requires a real risk of serious criminal harm.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted.

Jeffery Smith, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant public safety threat.

The ORB, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, found that despite a treating psychiatrist's opinion, other expert opinions and the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and recent concerning behaviour (stunt driving and dishonesty) indicated a continued significant threat to public safety without ORB oversight.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conditional discharge.

The appellant, C.B., appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board: one confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and its Community Treatment Plan (CTP), and another confirming his incapacity regarding treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity for antipsychotic medication, applying the correct legal test and finding no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal regarding the CTO and CTP was dismissed as moot because the May 2021 CTO had expired, a new CTO was issued based on a fresh capacity assessment, and this new CTO was subsequently confirmed by the Board.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issues, citing a change in the evidentiary basis of the dispute and judicial economy.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant public safety risk and seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on significant risk was reasonable, supported by clinical assessment, and that a conditional discharge was not appropriate given the appellant's limited insight and inability to be monitored in the community.

The court also found the Board adequately considered Gladue principles.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Board's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision to maintain a conditional discharge.

The court found that despite some progress, the appellant's recent threatening and physically aggressive conduct, including an offer to pay someone to stab his psychiatrist and multiple Code White incidents involving staff assaults, supported the Board's finding of a significant threat.

Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's improved mobility and subsequent aggressive behaviour was admitted and considered.

The appellant, under a detention order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) following a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) finding, appealed the ORB's decision to continue his detention.

The appellant argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant risk to public safety and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk, based on psychiatric evidence of likely decompensation and violence if discharged, was reasonable.

The court also found the ORB reasonably considered and rejected a conditional discharge, given the risk of rapid deterioration.