Anne Marshall

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for mischief and uttering threats, has diagnoses of schizophrenia and severe cannabis use disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

However, noting his significant progress, stable housing, and employment, the Board adopted the joint submission to amend his conditions.

The amendments removed a specific residence requirement and permitted the supervised use of CBD to assist with sleep.

The appellant challenged an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

Following a material change in living circumstances and concession that practical utility of the appeal had dissipated pending the next annual review, the court dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine the fitness of the accused to stand trial on multiple charges, including threatening death and possession of a weapon.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, was previously found unfit and placed on a treatment order.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused lacked a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and the ability to meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board found the accused unfit to stand trial and issued a detention order with conditions at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel found the registrant guilty of multiple heads of professional misconduct arising from boundary violations, sexualized remarks, inappropriate self-disclosure, and exploitative communications with two clients in the course of counselling and psychotherapy services.

The panel held that the admitted conduct breached the governing statute, the Professional Misconduct Regulation, and the College’s Handbook standards, and constituted sexual abuse through behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature not clinically appropriate to the services provided.

The panel also accepted that out-of-session and post-termination text communications, including a semi-nude photograph sent to a former client, formed part of the misconduct analysis.

A publication ban protecting the clients’ identities was granted, the two notices were combined, and the joint submission on penalty was accepted.

The registrant was reprimanded, his certificate of registration was revoked, publication was ordered, and costs of $5,000 were imposed.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the panel found that a social worker committed professional misconduct by refusing counselling services based in part on the complainant's Chinese ethnicity and assumptions about social media use and boundary risks.

Applying the prima facie discrimination framework under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the panel held that the complainant suffered adverse treatment in the provision of services and that the protected ground was a factor in the refusal.

The panel accepted expert evidence on social work boundaries and cultural competence, found that the registrant failed to make adequate inquiries before asserting a boundary conflict, and rejected the registrant's procedural fairness and abuse of process arguments.

Some allegations were dismissed, including those tied to self-determination, referral adequacy, and the intake-form language error, but multiple standards breaches and Code-related misconduct findings were made.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital proposed an absolute discharge, which was supported by the accused and ultimately the Crown.

The Board found that the accused had been stable in the community for years, was compliant with his schizophrenia medication, and had strong community supports.

Concluding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The applicant, an occupational therapist, sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee (ICRC) ordering her to complete a Specified Continuing Education or Remediation Program (SCERP).

The investigation focused on two specific billing issues, and the applicant was advised by the College to restrict her response to those issues.

However, the ICRC imposed the SCERP based on broader practice management concerns not explicitly raised in the investigation.

The Divisional Court found the process procedurally unfair, as the applicant was not given adequate notice or an opportunity to respond to the broader concerns.

The application was allowed, the ICRC's decision was quashed, and the matter was not remitted for reconsideration.

The appellant, Victoria Frazer, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board which concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered her continued conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she did not pose a significant threat.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion was unreasonable and relied too heavily on speculation regarding potential medication non-compliance and substance use.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and granted the appellant an absolute discharge.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge order.

The Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, rejecting his treating physician's low-risk assessment due to insufficient factual grounding and limited self-reports.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Board did not abdicate its inquisitorial role and its decision was reasonable and supported by the record.

The appellant, an Indigenous individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a Gladue Report for his next annual review.

The Board had deemed the report premature, suggesting it would be more beneficial after further treatment stability.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's refusal unreasonable, emphasizing its duty to gather all relevant evidence, including Gladue information, for Indigenous NCR accused persons.

The court reiterated that Gladue principles apply to Board proceedings and require a distinct analytical approach.

The appeal was allowed, and the Board was ordered to ensure a Gladue Report is prepared before the appellant's next hearing.

The appellant, a licensed cemetery operator, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its licence under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant sold undeveloped interment rights in violation of the Act, failed to issue interment rights certificates, failed to comply with a court order, ignored directives from the Bereavement Authority of Ontario, and displayed a callous disregard for consumers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the past conduct of the appellant's officers and directors afforded reasonable grounds for belief that its business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that continued licensure with conditions was not an appropriate alternative and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The appellant, a licensed funeral director, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his licence and an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant failed to comply with COVID-19 public health requirements, including face mask mandates and a directive to implement a staff vaccine policy.

The Tribunal held an interim hearing to determine whether to extend the suspension order until the conclusion of the main appeal hearing.

Finding credible information that the appellant failed to comply with the Registrar's directive and public health measures, the Tribunal concluded that extending the suspension was in the public interest to protect vulnerable attendees at funeral establishments.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision directing the Registrar not to revoke the respondent's funeral preplanner licence.

The respondent had misused client funds, but the LAT found she did not personally benefit and her past conduct did not give reason to believe she would fail to act with honesty and integrity in the future.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT made no reviewable errors in its application of section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and properly considered the respondent's motivations.