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.
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; 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 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.
