Anita Szigeti

The appellant, who had been found not criminally responsible for violent offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred in rejecting an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given expert evidence that the appellant posed a high risk of violence, lacked insight, and was unwilling to follow conditions.

A detention order was found to be the least restrictive disposition.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several assaults, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge was appropriate and that his risk could be managed in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded a detention order was necessary due to the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, his substance use, and the need for proactive intervention to prevent decompensation.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats to burn property and breaching court orders.

The Ontario Review Board ordered her detention at a forensic mental health centre.

She appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant threat to the public and in failing to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the appellant lacked community supports, had a history of non-compliance, and would likely revert to substance abuse and decompensate if released.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that renewed his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to the risk of non-compliance with his medication if discharged absolutely without community monitoring.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible (NCR) for offences committed in 2000 and 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge and reinstated a condition prohibiting cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to conduct an even-handed analysis of the evidence, pathologized trivial conduct, and ignored significant evidence of the appellant's progress, medication compliance, and abstinence from other illicit drugs.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing her detention order.

She sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision reasonable, noting the appellant's severe and persistent mental illness, history of violence, treatment non-compliance, and substance use.

The Board correctly applied the legal tests to conclude she remained a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was the least onerous and appropriate disposition.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for theft and failure to comply with probation, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention in a secure forensic unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he represented a significant risk to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record amply supported the Board's conclusion given the appellant's serious acquired brain injury, psychiatric issues, and history of violence and aggression.

Ara Koundakjian appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, having sought a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued the Board misstated the governing legal test by using "appropriate" instead of "necessary and appropriate" and failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board understood the correct standard despite the shorthand, and that its determination of continued detention was reasonable and entitled to deference given the appellant's history of mental illness, substance abuse (cocaine), lack of insight, frequent breaches of disposition conditions, and the significant risk of serious harm to the public.

This is an appeal from an initial disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for assault causing bodily harm and assaulting a peace officer.

The appellant challenged the ORB's finding that he posed a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and, alternatively, argued for a conditional discharge instead of a detention order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable and amply supported by evidence, including expert opinions on the appellant's high risk for violent behaviour, lack of insight, and history of non-compliance with treatment.

The court affirmed that the ORB's decision to impose a detention order with community living privileges was justified, particularly for supervising housing and ensuring prompt readmission if the appellant relapsed, given his history of threatening housemates.

An appeal against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board was dismissed as moot.

The parties agreed that a later board disposition rendered the appeal academic, leading the court to dismiss the matter without addressing the merits of the original appeal.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition, which was a hybrid detention order with potential for community living.

The appellant had a history of non-compliance with previous conditional discharge orders, leading to hospitalization and absconding.

The appellant argued for a less restrictive disposition, but the Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding its reasons comprehensive and reasonable given the appellant's continued significant threat to public safety and history of absconding.

The victim of an assault sought leave to intervene in a Crown appeal of a disposition by the Ontario Review Board regarding the accused, who had been found not criminally responsible.

The victim sought to argue for a geographic boundary restriction, an issue the Crown had raised unsuccessfully at the board but did not appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that permitting the victim to intervene would unfairly prejudice the accused by raising an issue not raised by the parties.

The court noted that the victim's concerns had been articulated by the Crown, whose responsibility it is to speak for the community regarding public safety.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention of a not criminally responsible accused at a forensic psychiatric facility.

The appellant sought conditional discharge with residence at his mother's home.

The Court of Appeal found the Board failed in its inquisitorial duty by not adequately exploring whether safeguards could mitigate concerns about attending physicians' understanding of the appellant's specific delusional disorder, and by relying on an unexplained administrative decision denying residence with his mother without requiring justification.

The appeal was allowed and the matter returned to the Board for re-hearing on an expedited basis.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, mischief, threatening death, and assault with a weapon, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering her continued detention in a forensic psychiatric facility.

The appellant challenged the Board's application of the significant risk test and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the legal test applied or its application to the evidence.

The Board properly considered the appellant's history of medication non-compliance, continued cannabis use in breach of conditions, and recent aggressive incidents with co-patients as active risk factors supporting a finding of significant risk to public safety.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 4, 2019, ordering continued detention in the General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, an independent assessment of his treatment plan and risk with an early hearing date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the appellant continues to meet the threshold for significant threat was amply justified.

However, the court expressed concern that no concrete plan for community reintegration had been established as previously directed.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 24, 2019, concerning a detention order for the appellant.

The appellant sought to include a term allowing community living at the Hospital's discretion, arguing it was a viable prospect within the year and would allow placement on a waiting list for community living.

The Board rejected these arguments after full consideration of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, noting that the Board had expanded the order to permit community access under indirect supervision, which the appellant was utilizing.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code regarding the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 14, 2019.

Although the parties agreed the appeal was moot, there was a dispute regarding the wording of the endorsement.

The court agreed with the appellant's proposed wording and dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that a subsequent Ontario Review Board hearing determined the appellant should be transferred to St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton due to a treatment impasse with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board order detaining her in the General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for charges of possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault.

She sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety based on her active psychiatric symptoms, stated intention to cease medication if released, vulnerability to opiate-based medications, and history of medication non-adherence.

The court found the Board's reasoning sound and the disposition reasonable and necessary.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the Board improperly conflated the risk of relapse in mental illness with the risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the evidence supported a finding of significant risk of reoffending based on the appellant's psychosis triggered by substance abuse, his history of violent behaviour, and high actuarial risk scores.

The Board properly rejected a conditional discharge, accepting expert evidence that Mental Health Act provisions would be inadequate to protect the public.

An NCR accused appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretionary community living privileges.

The appellant argued he posed no significant risk to public safety, citing 15 years without violent behaviour, and sought an absolute discharge or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly considered all relevant factors under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and reasonably concluded the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his mental illness, lack of insight, substance abuse issues, and criminal history.

The court emphasized that absence of violent behaviour does not eliminate risk of serious psychological harm, and that Part XX.1 is designed to protect public safety before violence occurs.