The Court of Appeal set aside an Ontario Review Board detention order because the Board failed to adequately explain how the appellant's cannabis use created a substantial risk of serious harm.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2016, appealed a 2024 disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention.
The ORB concluded he remained a significant threat to public safety primarily due to ongoing cannabis use.
The Court of Appeal found that the ORB's reasons did not adequately explain how the legal test for "significant threat to the safety of the public" was met, particularly regarding the causal link between cannabis use, mental state deterioration, and a substantial risk of serious criminal harm.
The court noted the appellant's medication adherence and lack of recent violent behaviour, questioning the ORB's conclusion that intervention was the sole reason for no deterioration.
The appeal was allowed, the ORB's disposition set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.
The court upheld the Review Board's decision restricting an NCR appellant's out-of-province travel privileges.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition restricting his travel to Ontario.
He sought to expand travel privileges to Quebec for snowboarding.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable given the appellant's significant public safety risk and the potential difficulties in managing his condition or obtaining services out of province.
The court emphasized the deference owed to the Board's risk management decisions.
Conditional discharge set aside and re-hearing ordered because reasons regarding public safety threat were insufficient.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed a conditional discharge from the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.
The Court of Appeal found the Board's reasoning for determining a 'significant threat to public safety' insufficient, particularly regarding the appellant's medication compliance and post-discharge support.
The court set aside the Board's disposition and ordered a re-hearing before a new panel.
The appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition was dismissed as moot following changed circumstances.
The appellant, Geoffrey Le Feuvre, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), arguing the Board's finding of significant public threat was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the appeal moot because a subsequent urgent hearing resulted in a new disposition transferring the appellant to a different facility with community living privileges.
The court declined to hear the appeal on its merits due to the material change in circumstances and ordered an expedited new hearing by the Board to assess the significant threat issue based on the appellant's current situation.
The court varied a review board disposition to add a community living clause.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition.
The Board had rejected both a conditional discharge and a community living clause, despite the hospital's recommendation for the latter for therapeutic and practical reasons.
The Court of Appeal found the Board erred in rejecting the inclusion of a community living clause, as it was deemed therapeutically beneficial and practically necessary for the appellant's progress and access to appropriate care.
The appeal was allowed to vary the disposition to include the community living provision, while upholding the Board's decision against a conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's detention order for an individual found not criminally responsible.
This is an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for uttering threats and possessing a weapon.
The ORB upheld a detention order, finding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.
The appellant challenged the ORB's finding of significant threat, arguing the evidence did not support it under the Winko test, and that the Board erred by not granting a conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no fault with the ORB's comprehensive analysis of the Winko test and its decision not to grant a conditional discharge given the appellant's history of substance abuse, medication non-compliance, and aggression following a previous conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's refusal of a cannabis exemption.
This is an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible for arson.
The appellant challenged the ORB's refusal to grant a cannabis exemption as part of his continued detention and privileges, arguing that cannabis use would be a harm reduction strategy for his cocaine use and was not linked to public safety risk.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence, including a link between cannabis use and the index offence, and that prior cannabis use did not curb cocaine use.
The Ontario Review Board must proactively order Gladue Reports for Indigenous NCR accused to fulfill its statutory duty to gather relevant evidence.
The appellant, an Indigenous individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a Gladue Report for his next annual review.
The Board had deemed the report premature, suggesting it would be more beneficial after further treatment stability.
The Court of Appeal found the Board's refusal unreasonable, emphasizing its duty to gather all relevant evidence, including Gladue information, for Indigenous NCR accused persons.
The court reiterated that Gladue principles apply to Board proceedings and require a distinct analytical approach.
The appeal was allowed, and the Board was ordered to ensure a Gladue Report is prepared before the appellant's next hearing.
The Court of Appeal upheld an ORB disposition continuing the appellant's detention and denying smoking privileges due to past non-compliance.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention at the North Bay Regional Health Centre.
The appeal raised two issues: whether the ORB unreasonably focused on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to the exclusion of trauma and Gladue principles, and whether its decision regarding smoking privileges was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground due to the appellant's concessions on the detention disposition.
Regarding smoking, the court found the ORB's decision reasonable, noting the hospital's smoke-free policy and the appellant's past non-compliance with privileges.
The appeal was dismissed.
The Ontario Review Board erred by rejecting a joint submission for community living privileges without considering less restrictive alternatives.
The Ontario Review Board failed to fulfill its obligation to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by declining to implement a joint submission for a detention order with community living privileges without considering less onerous alternatives.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordering the implementation of the joint submission with an additional condition for a three-month review by the Board to assess compliance and determine the appropriate disposition.
The court upheld the appellant's continued hospital detention despite premature revocation of community housing.
The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that maintained his detention in a hospital, finding it to be the least onerous and restrictive measure commensurate with public safety.
The appellant had relapsed into drug use and exhibited psychotic symptoms after transitioning to supervised community housing, leading to his readmission to the hospital.
The hospital prematurely revoked his community housing approval before the ORB hearing.
The Court of Appeal found the ORB's decision to continue detention reasonable, given the appellant's history of violence, recent threats, and denial of substance abuse.
While acknowledging the hospital's premature revocation of housing approval undermined procedural fairness, the court found the appellant ultimately received a fair hearing and that there was no basis for appellate intervention.
The Court of Appeal upheld a conditional discharge for an NCR accused posing significant threat.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) in 2015, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.
The appellant argued he no longer posed a significant threat due to medication compliance and incident-free reintegration.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, considering the paramount public safety, the appellant's mental condition, and reintegration.
Despite progress, the ORB found a significant threat remained due to the appellant's limited insight into his illness, potential for non-adherence to treatment without supervision, and expert psychiatric opinion.
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conditional discharge.
The Court upheld the supervised accommodation condition but corrected the disposition's geographical scope.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for robbery in 2005, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB).
The appeal concerned two conditions: the addition of "supervised accommodation" and the geographical scope of community living.
The appellant argued the "supervised accommodation" condition was unilaterally and unreasonably added without sufficient exploration, citing *Elster (Re)*.
The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, distinguishing *Elster* on procedural fairness grounds, noting counsel had the opportunity to address the issue.
The appellant also argued the geographical scope was inconsistent with the Board's reasons, as the disposition limited community living to "Hamilton" post-transfer, while the Board intended "Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".
The Court agreed with the appellant on this point, finding the Board and parties assumed GTA included Hamilton, and ordered the geographical scope for both pre- and post-transfer accommodation to be "the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".
The Court of Appeal upheld a conditional discharge for an NCR appellant, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety despite recent stability.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for six counts of sexual assault due to mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition of conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.
The appellant argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, citing his stability under strict bail conditions and improved insight.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's finding that a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm remained, considering the nature of his illness, past non-compliance, and the recency of his improved insight, despite his recent stability.
The Court upheld a detention order for an NCR appellant posing a significant safety risk.
The appellant, Trevor Caruso, appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) which found him not criminally responsible (NCR) and ordered his detention due to schizophrenia and various substance use disorders.
The ORB concluded he posed a significant threat to public safety, citing aggressive behaviour when unwell, a compulsive link between substance use and criminal behaviour, and a history of absconding.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the ORB's finding that the appellant remained a significant threat, largely upholding the ORB's reliance on uncharged violent incidents (carjacking, syringe incident) as evidence of risk, while noting that reliance on mere facts of restraint or reported fear without further inquiry was insufficient.
The Court also upheld the ORB's determination that the detention order was the least onerous and restrictive disposition, given the appellant's flight risk, the critical need for daily oral medication, and the high risk of violence if untreated and at large.
The court upheld a detention order but amended it to mandate culturally appropriate Indigenous care.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR), appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and affirmed the majority's decision for a detention order, rejecting the appellant's request for an absolute or conditional discharge.
However, the court amended the detention order to include specific directives for the hospital to explore culturally appropriate programs, housing, and care for the appellant, particularly in Owen Sound, in accordance with Gladue principles.
The Court of Appeal upheld an Ontario Review Board detention order for a not criminally responsible individual experiencing marked mental deterioration.
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 Court of Appeal upheld the review board's decision granting an absolute discharge.
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 court upheld a review board detention order for an individual found not criminally responsible.
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 Court of Appeal upheld an Ontario Review Board decision transferring an Indigenous appellant to a maximum-security psychiatric facility.
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.
