211 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's detention order for an NCRMD appellant, finding that public safety remains paramount despite the COVID-19 pandemic.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition requiring his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the ORB's decision as reasonable.
The court found that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his mental health diagnoses, substance abuse, history of non-compliance with community privileges, and the violent nature of his index offences.
The court also rejected the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a conditional discharge, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration and that a detention order provides essential early intervention capabilities beyond those available under the Mental Health Act.
The Court of Appeal granted an absolute discharge, finding the Review Board's conclusion that the NCR accused posed a significant threat lacked evidentiary support and adequate reasoning.
The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for prior offences, appealed a 2019 Ontario Review Board disposition that continued his conditional discharge and imposed new alcohol and drug testing requirements.
The appellant argued the Board erred in its application of the significant threat test and provided insufficient reasons.
The Court of Appeal found that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat was not supported by the evidence and lacked proper analysis regarding the degree of risk or gravity of apprehended harm.
The court emphasized that factors such as lack of insight, potential medication non-compliance, or substance abuse do not automatically establish a significant threat without specific analysis of the risk of serious criminal conduct.
The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted, although the issue was rendered moot by a subsequent 2020 Board decision granting an absolute discharge.
The Court of Appeal ordered a conditional discharge for an NCR accused, finding the Review Board's continued detention order unreasonable.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition continuing his detention order.
The appellant sought a conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal found the ORB's decision unreasonable, citing errors in assessing the appellant's community stay, failing to inquire into the hospital's COVID-related assessment cessation, dismissing housing offers as unprofessional, and relying on speculative rapid decompensation.
The court emphasized the "least onerous and least restrictive" principle.
The appeal was allowed, and a conditional discharge with specific conditions was ordered.
Appeal from Review Board detention order dismissed, but disposition amended to reflect reasons regarding housing.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible in 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention with privileges.
He argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat and that there was an impasse in finding community housing due to his substance use.
The Court of Appeal found the Board's factual misapprehension regarding recent charges was immaterial and upheld the finding that he remained a significant threat.
The Court dismissed the appeal but amended the disposition to include the Board's direction from its reasons that the hospital look at housing that does not require abstinence.
Ontario Review Board exceeded jurisdiction by ordering a videoconference hearing without the NCR accused's consent.
The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible, objected to the Ontario Review Board holding her annual disposition review hearing by videoconference during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Board ruled it had the authority to proceed by videoconference without her consent and over her objections.
The applicant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the ruling.
The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that under section 672.5(13) of the Criminal Code, the Board may only hold a hearing by videoconference if the accused consents, and therefore the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.
Appeal from Review Board dismissed; temporary hold on NCR accused's community passes did not require mandatory hearing.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention and a decision that a temporary hold on his indirectly supervised community passes did not constitute a significant restriction of liberty requiring a mandatory hearing.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant's continued detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given his recent decompensation.
The Court also upheld the Board's application of the Campbell framework, agreeing that the temporary restriction on privileges was a day-to-day clinical management decision that did not meet the threshold of a significant increase in liberty restrictions.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board detention order dismissed as appellant poses high risk of violence.
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.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board detention order dismissed; conditional discharge premature due to lack of insight.
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.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board detention order dismissed; finding of significant threat to public upheld.
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.
Appeal from Review Board dismissed; conditional discharge upheld due to risk of medication non-compliance.
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.
Review Board disposition set aside and absolute discharge ordered for NCR accused due to unreasonable risk assessment.
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.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board dismissed; continuation of detention order found reasonable.
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.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
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.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's detention order for an appellant found not criminally responsible, citing his lack of insight and risk of harm.
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.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's detention order for an NCRMD accused, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.
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.
The appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition was dismissed as moot following a subsequent disposition.
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 Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's hybrid detention order for an NCR appellant who previously absconded.
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.
Motion by victim to intervene in Ontario Review Board appeal dismissed to prevent unfair prejudice.
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.
The Court of Appeal remitted an NCR detention order for re-hearing because the Review Board failed its inquisitorial duty to explore mitigating safeguards.
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 Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's continued detention order.
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.
