Anita Szigeti

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.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition dated September 10, 2018, concerning an NCR accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Board's imposition of a detention order in place of a conditional discharge, arguing the detention was not necessary and appropriate and was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant had absconded from her group home, breached conditions by using substances, and demonstrated diminished insight into her illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes given the appellant's increased risk profile and the need for hospital flexibility in managing her care and community placement.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board detention order with privileges up to the possibility of community accommodation.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on three grounds: insufficient reasons, procedural error due to gaps in the record, and failure to adequately address why a conditional discharge was not the least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's reasoning, no procedural defect, and that the detention order fell within a range of reasonable outcomes based on evidence of ongoing mental illness, delusional thinking, substance abuse, medication non-compliance, and lack of insight into symptoms.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that continued a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's analysis was unreasonable because it improperly focused on the appellant's lack of insight into his medical condition rather than conducting a holistic assessment of whether he posed a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm to the public.

The Board also failed to adequately address conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's insight and did not provide sufficient evidentiary analysis of the relevant factors.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition granting a conditional discharge to an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat and imposed conditions including psychiatric medication compliance, monthly hospital reporting, and substance abstinence.

The Court of Appeal found the Board applied the wrong legal test, conflating the possibility of decompensation with a positive finding of significant threat.

However, fresh evidence of subsequent concerning behaviour (drug use, medication non-compliance, renewed focus on the victim) warranted remission to the Board for reassessment under the correct legal standard.

The appellant appealed a hybrid disposition ordered by the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order requiring detention on the Secure Forensic Unit with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit.

The sole ground of appeal was that the Board failed to consider the appellant's liberty interest when imposing this condition rather than ordering immediate transfer to the General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons, read as a whole, were faithful to the requirements established in Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board that declined to provide a term allowing for community living at the hospital's discretion.

The Board instead included a generous daily pass provision at the hospital's discretion.

The Court of Appeal found the order reflected the evidence of the treating psychiatrist and hospital team, and that the daily pass provision adequately addressed concerns regarding the appellant's potential deterioration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault and other offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention pursuant to a hybrid order allowing transition from secure to general forensic unit with community living privileges.

The appellant had been on conditional discharge but was readmitted to hospital after missing his monthly antipsychotic medication injection.

Following rapid decompensation and aggressive behaviour requiring seclusion, the Board concluded a conditional discharge was inappropriate and ordered the hybrid detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision as reasonable, finding the appellant was not in a position to be in the community at the time of the hearing.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning the disposition of an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain a detention order rather than grant a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued his risk could be managed safely in the community with a conditional discharge and resort to the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable given the evidence of the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, continued cannabis use, limited protective effect of anti-psychotic medication, and risk factors including occasional violence.

The appellant, a 24-year-old man diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment and confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued that he did better off the CTO and that his suicide attempt while on a previous CTO demonstrated that the CTO caused substantial mental deterioration.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decisions.

The court found that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant lacked insight into his illness and would likely suffer substantial mental deterioration without the CTO, given his history of decompensation and non-compliance with medication when not subject to an order.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the Board applied the wrong legal test and failed to meaningfully consider whether a conditional discharge would adequately protect the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered the statutory requirements, including the safety of the public and the reintegration of the accused into society, and that the Board's decision to continue the detention order was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible for assault and robbery offences committed in 2013 near Sudbury.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing he posed no significant risk of serious harm to the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to be reasonable given concerns about the appellant's drug use triggering psychotic decompensation and his lack of community living experience.

However, the court expressed concern that the appellant's inability to abstain from drug use had become an insurmountable barrier to obtaining privileges and suggested the Board consider crafting a disposition to facilitate community living experience in future reviews.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 10, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for possession of weapons dangerous, sought a conditional discharge or alternatively a new hearing.

The Board maintained a detention order in the general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with relaxed reporting requirements.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable due to inadequate reasons regarding whether the appellant's risk to the public could be managed under a conditional discharge.

The court directed the Board to reconsider the disposition at its next hearing with proper consideration of relevant factors, including mechanisms for securing attendance at hospital and the timing of any intervention.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition dated February 1, 2018, ordering the appellant's detention subject to conditions.

The appeal became moot when the Board issued a new disposition on January 14, 2019, before the appeal hearing.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the moot appeal, applying the two-step analysis from Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General).

The court found no live controversy affecting the parties' rights and determined that the Borowski factors did not justify exercising discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The court indicated willingness to hear an appeal from the 2019 disposition at an early date.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 26, 2018, continuing a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's schizoaffective disorder, substance abuse disorder, history of violence, lack of insight into her mental illness, medication compliance issues, and actuarial risk assessment placing her at moderate-high risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition fell within the range of reasonable outcomes supported by evidence.