Anita Szigeti

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible confinement and assault due to a delusional disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention on the Secure Forensic Unit at CAMH.

He sought a transfer to the less secure General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable because the appellant's refusal to engage with his treatment team prevented the hospital from assessing his risk, and the higher staff-to-patient ratio on the secure unit actually allowed him more escorted passes.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the decision not to transfer him from a Medium Secure Unit to a General Unit was unreasonable and that the Board failed to recognize a treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable based on evidence that the appellant refused to cooperate with programs and continued to demonstrate delusions.

The Court noted the upcoming annual review would assess any progress or need for an independent assessment.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

Because the underlying finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) had already been set aside on a separate appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed this appeal from the ORB decision for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred by failing to explicitly consider and reject a conditional discharge, despite a joint submission for a detention order with expanded privileges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had evidence that a conditional discharge could risk decompensation and suicidal or homicidal reactions due to stress related to the appellant's transgender status.

The Court concluded the Board fully discharged its obligation to impose the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's need for close medical supervision, history of substance abuse, lack of insight into his mental illness, and the risk of rapid decompensation without medication.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the Board hearing, the appellant's counsel did not contest the issue of significant risk.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Board erred by failing to discharge its inquisitorial function and make an independent determination that the significant threat threshold had been met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was entitled to rely on counsel's acknowledgment, which was supported by the appellant's history and psychological assessments indicating a significant prospect of recidivism.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

The court considered whether the Board lacked jurisdiction due to panel composition, the proper legal test for capacity under s. 4(1) of the Act, the applicable standard of review, and whether the Board’s application of the test was reasonable.

The court held that tribunal expertise justified deference regardless of the individual qualifications of panel members and that the standard of review for the Board’s application of law to facts was reasonableness.

The Board reasonably concluded that although the appellant could understand relevant information, symptoms described as perseveration and grandiosity prevented him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment.

The Board’s decision fell within a range of defensible outcomes and was upheld.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for second degree murder and assault with a weapon, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had upheld restrictions on his liberty and imposed a hybrid disposition, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety due to aggressive behaviour and non-compliance with medication.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge under s. 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety and that the hybrid disposition was the least restrictive and appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board refusing an absolute discharge and continuing a conditional discharge.

The Board concluded the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a high likelihood of non-compliance with anti-psychotic medication if discharged absolutely.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the expert opinion of a consulting forensic psychiatrist regarding the appellant's fluctuating insight into his condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in concluding he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on all the circumstances.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board that granted him a conditional discharge, arguing he should have received an absolute discharge.

The appellant contended the Board erred in finding he represented a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's unanimous decision, which relied on evidence that the appellant would pose a significant risk without the control of a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court also found the Board's decision to detain the appellant on a secure unit rather than a general unit or via a hybrid order was reasonable given concerns about her risk of going AWOL and assaultive behaviour.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, relying on an alibi.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable despite the alibi evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge or, alternatively, permission to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that there was a treatment impasse, noting that the diagnosis had been clarified and the treatment team was trying different approaches.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention in a minimum security facility.

She sought an absolute discharge or unsupervised community access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant posed a danger to the public and that the disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive option.

Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's absence without leave and refusal to take medication was admitted but ultimately supported the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a finding of incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found that the Consent and Capacity Board's decision was unreasonable because there was no evidence that the proposed treatment would benefit the appellant, nor any evidence of the consequences of refusing treatment.

The appeal was allowed and the finding of incapacity was set aside.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his conditional discharge.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to order a Community Treatment Order (CTO) instead.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on psychiatric evidence that the appellant would stop his medication and become a threat if absolutely discharged.

The Court also noted the Board lacked jurisdiction to order a CTO, as only a physician can issue one under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued he did not pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded based on expert evidence that the appellant would stop his medication if unsupervised, quickly decompensate, and pose a significant risk of harm to the public.

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant challenged the reasonableness of a detention order and a 50 km radius restriction requiring proximity to the hospital.

The court held that the disposition was supported by the record and reflected the least restrictive disposition agreed to by the parties before the Board.

Although fresh evidence showed the appellant was doing well, that progress was for the next Board hearing and did not render the earlier disposition unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board.

With the advice of counsel, the appellant chose to proceed with a review of that disposition instead.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.