211 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's detention order for an NCR accused due to ongoing public safety risks.
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 Court of Appeal granted an absolute discharge, finding the Review Board's decision unreasonable.
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.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the Review Board's decision to continue a conditional discharge.
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 court upheld the finding of incapacity for antipsychotic medication and dismissed the appeal regarding the expired community treatment order as moot.
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 Court of Appeal upheld a Review Board detention order, finding the clinical assessment of significant public safety risk reasonable.
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 court upheld the denial of an absolute discharge due to ongoing public safety threats.
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 Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue a detention order, finding the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety.
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.
Appeal from Consent and Capacity Board dismissed; finding of incapacity and Community Treatment Order upheld.
The appellant appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a Community Treatment Order and upholding a finding of incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medications.
The Superior Court of Justice applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review to the Board's factual findings.
The court found ample evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that the appellant lacked sufficient insight to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decisions and that he would suffer substantial deterioration without the CTO.
The appeals were dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue a detention order for an NCRMD appellant.
The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) for a fatal stabbing, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue a detention order, arguing that a conditional discharge was appropriate.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.
The court noted the appellant's history of non-compliance with treatment, tendency to minimize negative stressors, and the very short period he had been in the community after many years of confinement.
The ORB's decision to maintain the detention order was deemed a reasonable outcome to test the appellant in the community and ensure public safety.
The Court of Appeal upheld an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining the accused's hospital detention.
This decision addresses two appeals by an accused found not criminally responsible (NCRMD) from disposition orders of the Ontario Review Board (ORB).
The first appeal (C68888) challenged a 2020 detention order with community living privileges, which was ultimately adjourned as moot due to a subsequent disposition.
The second appeal (C69217) arose from a 2021 ORB hearing following the revocation of the accused's community living privileges and his re-detention due to new harassment incidents.
A central issue in the second appeal was the ORB's new practice of issuing general detention orders to a "Forensic Service" without specifying the security level of the unit.
The Court of Appeal expressed concern that this practice might hinder the ORB's ability to ensure the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, emphasizing the need for specificity regarding conditions and security levels.
The Court admitted fresh evidence regarding the accused's transfer to a secure unit and the withdrawal of criminal charges.
The Court maintained the 2021 disposition and dismissed the second appeal.
The Court upheld a detention order for an NCR appellant due to unsuitable housing.
The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed a detention order, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that the Board reasonably rejected a conditional discharge.
The Board's decision was based on the appellant's history of non-compliance with hospital stays, her limited insight into her mental illness, and the unsuitability of the proposed housing with her husband, given their problematic relationship and her past unstable housing as a risk factor.
The court found no error in the Board's assessment that a detention order was necessary to manage the significant risk to public safety.
The Court upheld the refusal to order a psychiatric assessment for a high-risk NCRMD accused.
This appeal concerned the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a psychiatric assessment for an accused, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) for double murder, who had been designated a "high-risk accused." The accused sought the assessment to promote an application to the Superior Court to remove his high-risk designation, arguing his progress meant he no longer qualified.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Board's decision.
The Court clarified that the "substantial likelihood" test for reviewing a high-risk designation assesses the accused's inherent risk of violence if not subject to external constraints, not their risk under current supervised conditions.
Given the accused's history and ongoing risk factors, the Board's conclusion that an assessment would not change its determination was reasonable.
The Court also noted the Board's error in applying an "onus" on the accused in inquisitorial proceedings, though found it non-prejudicial.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's conditional discharge of an NCR accused, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.
Matthew Gibson, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining conditional discharge.
He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, contending the risk assessment was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his compliance with medication and treatment, and stable family support.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's application of the significant risk test under the Criminal Code.
The court affirmed the Board's holistic consideration of risk factors, including lack of insight into his illness and index offences, and continued cannabis use, which outweighed protective factors, concluding the conditional discharge was necessary to manage the ongoing significant risk to public safety.
The Court upheld an Ontario Review Board detention order following the appellant's mental health deterioration.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at a forensic psychiatry program, arguing for a conditional discharge.
The ORB had vacated his previous conditional discharge due to concerning behaviours and a deteriorated mental state, supported by psychiatric and risk assessment evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, noting that a detention order was necessary to allow the Hospital to approve accommodation, consistent with the least onerous and restrictive disposition.
Appeal of Review Board detention order dismissed; 24-hour supervision required due to risk of decompensation.
The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
The appellant argued that a conditional discharge allowing him to return to his independent apartment was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was entitled to deference and reasonably concluded that the appellant required close 24-hour supervision due to his history of decompensation, violent behaviour, and substance abuse.
Appeal from Consent and Capacity Board dismissed; finding of incapacity to consent to treatment upheld.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his attending physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.
The appellant argued the Board failed to consider evidence that his psychosis was drug-induced, ignored family dynamics, and failed to address a prior Board decision finding him capable.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test under the Health Care Consent Act and had ample cogent evidence to conclude the appellant lacked the capacity to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision.
The Court of Appeal upheld a Review Board detention order for an NCR appellant.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences against intimate partners, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).
He argued the ORB erred in finding him a significant threat and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge, emphasizing a four-year period of stability while on bail.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to his psychiatric history, ongoing symptoms, medication non-compliance, and impaired insight.
The court also found that a detention order was necessary given the inadequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage his risk, and that the ORB had implicitly considered and rejected a conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal remitted an NCR disposition after finding the Review Board applied a possibility rather than probability standard for significant risk.
Robiel Negash, found not criminally responsible for robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the ORB majority erred by applying a "possibility" rather than "probability" test for significant risk to public safety and failed to address inconsistencies in the treating psychiatrist's evidence.
The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the ORB for a fresh determination.
The Court of Appeal upheld an NCR conditional discharge lacking a geographic boundary condition.
Bartosz Gajewski was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and forcible confinement and was subject to the Ontario Review Board (ORB) jurisdiction.
The ORB conditionally discharged him.
The Crown appealed this disposition, seeking to add a geographic boundary condition or to remit the matter for a re-hearing, arguing the ORB erred in law and was unreasonable in not imposing the boundary condition.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB correctly applied the law by balancing public safety with the accused's liberty interests and that its decision not to impose the boundary condition was reasonable, as existing conditions adequately protected the victim.
The Court of Appeal upheld a Review Board detention order despite COVID-19 pandemic concerns.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.
The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to consider his significant progress in hospital, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital's prior non-compliance with a restriction of liberty (ROL) order, and an alleged outdated understanding of the Mental Health Act's committal provisions by the treating psychiatrist.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered the appellant's progress and the pandemic's effects, appropriately reprimanded the hospital for its past non-compliance, and was entitled to rely on the psychiatrist's evidence given the record.
The court emphasized the Board's paramount consideration of public safety and the need for a complete record on Mental Health Act committal provisions in future disputes.
