Audrey Dupras

In a child protection proceeding, the biological father brought a motion seeking interim care and custody of his young child, who has significant medical needs.

The child had been residing with a kin caregiver since being removed from the mother's care.

The court applied the two-part test under section 94 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and found that the child could not be safely returned to the mother.

In assessing the competing placement plans, the court considered the father's pending criminal charges and the child's need for stability.

The court ordered that the child remain in the care of the kin caregiver, with the father granted one overnight visit per week.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who had been found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused was readmitted to the hospital after showing signs of decompensation and refusing his medication at his group home.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive measure, given the accused's history of rapid decompensation and risk to public safety when non-compliant with medication.

Following a guilty verdict on sexual offences involving a child complainant, the Crown disclosed a previously withheld statement from the complainant.

The statement contained new allegations and an admission of a prior false allegation against the accused.

The accused applied for a mistrial.

The court granted the application, finding that re-opening the trial and reconsidering the complainant's credibility in light of the new evidence would create a reasonable apprehension of bias given the court's prior positive credibility findings.

A mistrial was ordered as the only remedy capable of curing the prejudice and preserving trial fairness.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing and an initial hearing on new charges for an accused previously found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment and other offences.

The accused, who has schizophrenia, had been living in the community under a detention order but was readmitted to the hospital after a decompensation led to new criminal harassment charges, for which he was again found NCR.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order, finding it necessary and appropriate to protect the public while facilitating the accused's reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was unmedicated and awaiting transfer from a detention centre to the hospital.

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

A detention order was issued, but the Board rejected the hospital's broad community access privileges due to a lack of information about the accused's community functioning.

A pre-hearing conference was ordered to monitor the hospital transfer timeline.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of trial was 36 months and 11 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found significant defence delay attributable to the accused's failure to retain counsel and provide necessary financial documentation to Legal Aid.

After deducting the defence delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.