The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's detention order and found no procedural unfairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.
An appeal from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board concerning a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
The appellant challenged the Board's May 23, 2017 conditional discharge order and its August 11, 2017 detention order, arguing both were unreasonable and that the August 11 order resulted from procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the May 23 order as moot and upheld the August 11 detention order, finding it was reasonable based on the appellant's relapse into drug use, violent behavior, and non-compliance with medication and reporting requirements.
The court remitted the matter because the Board failed to consider a conditional discharge.
An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused who had been under the Board's supervision since 2005 following a nonviolent offence committed during a psychotic episode.
The Board concluded the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered his transfer from CAMH to St. Joseph's Mental Health Care.
The appellant challenged both the finding of significant threat and the Board's failure to consider a conditional discharge.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat but found the Board erred in failing to consider whether a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's conditional discharge, finding the appellant remained a significant threat.
An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated November 16, 2017.
The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2012 for criminal harassment and failure to comply with a recognizance.
The Board found the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety due to his psychotic disorder, active substance use disorder, lack of prosocial behaviour and motivation, and continued use of marijuana despite clinical advice against it.
The Board imposed a conditional discharge with detention order provisions.
The appellant appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding he constituted a significant threat and failed to provide adequate reasons.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by unanimous opinion of the treatment team.
The court upheld the appellant's psychiatric detention but ordered an independent review of her treatment.
An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
The appellant sought an absolute discharge after nearly ten years of detention at a psychiatric hospital, while the hospital sought increased security.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety based on her history of assaultive behavior, substance abuse, and recent violent incidents.
However, the court found the Board erred by failing to make mandatory its recommendation for independent professional review and a customized treatment plan aimed at eventual community reintegration, given the appellant's prolonged detention without progress and the risk that continued hospitalization may be counter-therapeutic.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's decision continuing the appellant's conditional discharge.
An appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his conditional discharge on terms.
The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2006 for assault causing bodily harm and mischief.
The Board found the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety based on his lack of insight into his mental illness, his unwillingness to take medication absent a Board order, his continued residual symptoms despite medication, his history of marijuana use leading to clinical worsening, and threatening statements made in 2015.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding the conclusion that a foreseeable and substantial risk existed was reasonable on the evidence.
The Court of Appeal upheld a Review Board detention order for an NCR appellant.
An appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 24, 2017.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for robbery in 2010, challenged the Board's decision to impose a detention disposition rather than a conditional discharge.
The appellant argued that a conditional discharge with treatment conditions could manage his risk as effectively as detention.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal test and that its conclusion was reasonable given the appellant's recent deterioration, non-compliance with conditions, medication non-adherence, and the limitations of the Mental Health Act in managing his risk.
The Court of Appeal granted an absolute discharge, finding the Review Board's risk assessment speculative and unreasonable.
The appellant, an NCR accused with schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorder in remission, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to order a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.
The Board had imposed a requirement that the appellant demonstrate a 12-month drug-free period before obtaining absolute discharge, citing substance abuse as the critical risk factor.
The Court of Appeal found the Board had misdirected itself by shifting the burden of proof to the appellant and by relying on speculative evidence of risk rather than evidence demonstrating a significant threat to public safety.
The court allowed the appeal and ordered an absolute discharge.
An accused incapable of consenting to medical treatment may still possess the capacity to consent to a treatment condition under section 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.
Two appellants, both found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and incapable of consenting to medical treatment under provincial law, appealed detention orders imposed by the Ontario Review Board.
The central issue was whether an accused person incapable of consenting to medical treatment could nonetheless consent to a condition regarding psychiatric or other treatment under section 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.
The Court of Appeal held that the capacity required to consent to such a condition differs from the capacity required to consent to the treatment itself.
An accused need only understand information relevant to the operation of the condition and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of agreeing to it, including potential consequences for liberty.
The Court overruled its prior jurisprudence to the contrary and allowed the appeals, remitting the matters back to the Board for re-hearing.
The Court of Appeal upheld an Ontario Review Board detention order as the least restrictive disposition.
An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 24, 2017.
The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision to impose a detention order with community living privileges at the discretion of the hospital, finding that the Board reasonably determined this was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's admitted risk to public safety, history of non-compliance with medication, alcohol use, and pattern of rule violations.
The Ontario Review Board lacks jurisdiction under the Charter to order systemic institutional remedies.
An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning an NCR accused person's Charter rights.
The appellant sought systemic remedies from the Board for violations of his section 8 Charter right arising from unauthorized seizure of urine samples.
The Board found the Charter violation but declined to grant systemic remedies, determining it lacked jurisdiction to do so.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, holding that while the Board has jurisdiction to determine Charter issues and grant individual remedies, it does not have jurisdiction to impose broad systemic or institutional orders.
The Board's mandate is limited to supervising individual NCR accused persons and ensuring their conditions are least onerous and restrictive consistent with public safety.
The Court upheld a Review Board disposition reducing a high-risk offender's community access.
The appellant appealed a disposition issued by the Ontario Review Board that imposed additional restrictions on his community access, reducing his indirectly supervised community access to a maximum of four hours with an approved itinerary and reducing day passes from seven days indirectly supervised to three days directly supervised.
The appellant challenged the disposition on multiple grounds, including that it was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, that the Board failed to carry out its inquisitorial mandate, that the Board focused exclusively on public safety, that a treatment impasse existed requiring Board intervention, and that the Board failed to consult the complete risk assessment report.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the Board's disposition.
The Court of Appeal granted an absolute discharge to an NCR accused, finding the Review Board's conclusion of a significant threat to public safety unreasonable and speculative.
An NCR accused appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to be a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention with community living privileges.
The appellant, a 37-year-old with bipolar disorder and a lengthy criminal history, sought an absolute discharge.
The Board's majority relied on evidence that the appellant's marijuana use was potentially linked to hypomanic symptoms and could lead to a full manic episode, during which he might pose a risk of violent behavior.
The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion unreasonable, noting that despite a substantial risk of substance abuse and reoffending, the appellant had not committed an act of violence since 2004 and the Board's concerns were speculative and insufficiently grounded in evidence to meet the high threshold for "significant threat to public safety."
The Court upheld a Review Board disposition allowing community access, adding a boundary condition.
The Crown appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board regarding Bartosz Gajewski, raising two grounds: (1) that a condition allowing indirectly supervised or unaccompanied entry into the community for up to seven days was unreasonable and did not protect public safety, and (2) that the Board's failure to include the victim's father (J.N.) in a 500-metre boundary condition was unreasonable.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground, finding the Board's disposition reasonably supported by the evidence and noting that the Crown had not opposed the condition at the hearing.
The Court allowed the second ground in part, ordering that J.N. be included in the 500-metre boundary condition.
The Court upheld a custodial disposition, confirming the Review Board cannot issue community treatment orders.
An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering that a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder remain on the secure forensic unit of a hospital.
The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge.
The Board found the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety based on his lack of insight into his mental illness, likelihood of non-compliance with medication, and psychological testing indicating high risk of psychotic relapse and violent behaviour.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition as reasonable and dismissed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new Review Board hearing, finding that an NCR accused's decade-long refusal of treatment constituted a treatment impasse.
An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention of an NCR accused at a maximum security forensic psychiatric facility.
The appellant was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder of his former psychiatrist and had been detained since 2006.
The appellant refused to engage in treatment and maintained a negative view of mental health workers.
The Court of Appeal upheld the board's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety but found that the board erred in failing to recognize a treatment impasse after a decade of no progress.
The court ordered a new hearing to consider an independent assessment and alternative treatment approaches.
The court upheld the Review Board's disposition maintaining the appellant's detention, finding no treatment impasse existed.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault, argued that he had reached a treatment impasse at Waypoint and sought an independent assessment and transfer to a less secure facility.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence did not substantiate the existence of a treatment impasse and that the Board's decision to maintain detention at Waypoint was well-supported by evidence regarding the appellant's risk to public safety, including his history of water intoxication, threats to staff, and previous elopement from other facilities.
The Court of Appeal upheld an Ontario Review Board disposition restricting community access for an individual posing a significant risk to public safety.
An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 27, 2016.
The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board should have made further inquiries regarding the cause of the appellant's psychosis (whether from liver disease or bipolar disorder), and second, that the Board erred in rejecting conditions regarding community access and an approved person.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding no error in the Board's acceptance of the joint position that the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety and no error in the Board's decision to impose more limited community access conditions at that time.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board disposition dismissed; finding that appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.
The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a psychiatric facility, arguing he did not pose a significant threat to public safety and should receive an absolute discharge.
The Court of Appeal found that the Board reasonably addressed conflicting medical evidence and properly considered a recent incident where the appellant brought methamphetamine into the facility.
The appeal was dismissed, as the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.
Appeal from Review Board detention order dismissed; conditional discharge denied due to ongoing risk.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several violent offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he remain subject to a detention order.
The appellant argued the Board erred by denying his request for a conditional discharge and failing to conduct an individualized assessment of risk.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence that the appellant had limited insight into his mental illness, minimized his offences, and required a managed transition into the community.
Appeal dismissed; patient found incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment due to inability to appreciate consequences.
The appellant appealed a decision upholding a Consent and Capacity Board finding that she was incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.
The appellant argued that her symptoms were caused by physical ailments rather than a mental condition, and that the Board misapplied the test for capacity from Starson v. Swayze.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably concluded that the appellant was unable to appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment because she could not recognize the possibility that she was affected by a mental condition.
