Barbara J. Walker-Renshaw

The appellants appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying an absolute discharge and ordering a transfer to a less secure facility.

The hospital appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by ordering the transfer despite its objections.

The individual appellant argued the Board unreasonably rejected his treating physician's evidence that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hospital received adequate notice but chose not to participate, and that the Board's findings regarding the individual's diagnosis and ongoing threat to public safety were reasonable.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that directed his detention at a mental health facility, revoking his prior conditional discharge.

The appellant had been returned to the facility after being charged with criminal harassment, which was resolved by a peace bond.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, given his diagnosis, lack of insight, and recent negative interactions.

The Court also upheld the detention order, noting the appellant's lack of stable housing and employment prospects, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her involuntary admission and finding her incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the Board's decisions on a standard of reasonableness.

The court found that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant met the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act due to the risk of serious bodily harm to her mother.

The court also upheld the Board's finding that the appellant lacked the capacity to consent to treatment under the Health Care Consent Act, as her delusions prevented her from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her treatment decisions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for a sexual assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention on a secure forensic unit.

He argued he should be transferred to a general forensic unit or given a hybrid order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's ongoing inappropriate sexual behaviour and the increased risk to others if supervision were decreased.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Following a deterioration in his mental state, he was readmitted to a secure forensic assessment unit.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing and found that his continued detention without usual privileges violated his s. 7 Charter rights, ordering the hospital to pay costs under s. 24(1).

The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal, holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the detention met the least onerous and least restrictive standard, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to award costs as a Charter remedy.

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 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, 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 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, who was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention on a secure forensic unit.

He argued the Board erred by rejecting a hybrid disposition that would have allowed discretion to transfer him to a general forensic unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that a hybrid disposition was premature to be reasonable given the early stages of the appellant's treatment.

Although the Board improperly relied on the appellant's request for an absolute discharge to buttress its findings, the error was of no consequence.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for first degree murder.

At his first Ontario Review Board hearing, the board accepted a joint submission for detention in a medium security unit with escorted hospital grounds privileges, but added a condition permitting escorted or accompanied access to the community at the hospital's discretion.

The Crown appealed, arguing the community access condition was unreasonable and that the board breached procedural fairness by adding it without allowing prior submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the condition was supported by expert psychiatric evidence and that the board did not owe the Crown a common law duty of procedural fairness in these circumstances.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to extend the suspension of a declaration of invalidity to September 30, 2014.

The extension was requested because legislation responding to the court's previous decision was still proceeding through parliament.

As the request was reasonable and consented to by all parties and the amicus curiae, the Court of Appeal granted the motion.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the majority of the Board misapprehended the expert evidence of a doctor.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of the evidence and held that the Board's decision was reasonable.

Giving deference to the Board's analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for failing to comply with a probation order and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence of the appellant's delusional disorder, lack of insight, and continued threat to the community.

The fresh evidence would not have affected the outcome.

The Person in Charge for Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence, finding it trustworthy and relevant to the issue of risk to public safety.

Concluding that the fresh evidence could reasonably have affected the Board's decision, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before the Board.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in the Secure Forensic Service at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The appellant argued he should receive an absolute discharge and that the Board erred in applying the test for the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's assessment of the evidence reasonable and concluding that the transfer to the Secure Forensic Service was actually less restrictive due to a higher staff-to-patient ratio allowing for greater freedom.

The Crown appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition that granted the respondent an absolute discharge.

The Crown argued the Board failed to properly assess the risk of psychological harm to the public, misapprehended evidence, and exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision that the respondent was not a significant threat to the public was reasonable and supported by the record.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming an involuntary psychiatric admission and finding the appellant incapable of consenting to certain forms of treatment under the Health Care Consent Act.

By the time the appeal was heard, the appellant had been discharged from the treating facility and was under the care of a different physician, with subsequent admissions and new incapacity findings having occurred.

The court concluded there was no longer a live controversy between the parties because the treatment relationship underlying the Board decision had ended.

Applying the mootness principles articulated in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), the court declined to exercise its residual discretion to hear the matter.

The appeal was dismissed as moot, leaving the Board’s earlier decision as the final disposition of the application.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

Previously, the Court of Appeal had substituted a conditional discharge and remitted the matter to the Board solely to determine the appropriate conditions.

The Board, however, engaged in a broader inquiry and postponed the appellant's mandatory annual review.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred in interpreting the previous order, thereby denying the appellant procedural fairness and his right to an annual review under s. 672.81 of the Criminal Code.

The Court declined to grant an absolute discharge due to an insufficient record and remitted the matter to a differently constituted panel of the Board for an immediate full hearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred by failing to direct that necessary inquiries regarding the appellant's mother becoming an 'approved person' be finalized forthwith, as required by Winko.

The Board also misapprehended evidence by stating the appellant had no track record in the community, when in fact he had successfully completed several unescorted passes.

The Court substituted an order for conditional release and remitted the matter to the Board to determine appropriate conditions.