Barbara J. Walker-Renshaw

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that restricted his possession or use of cell phones, portable wireless communication devices, and computers.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the Board's decision, but clarified that the restriction on computer use was intended to prevent internet access and did not preclude the appellant from using a computer that has no internet connection.

With that clarification, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board denying him an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's non-compliance and recent elopement.

However, the Court cautioned the institution and the Board to focus on the objective of the appellant's ultimate reintegration into the community to avoid a situation of impasse.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible for violent offences and detained at a mental health centre.

The Ontario Review Board subsequently granted him an absolute discharge, finding he no longer posed a significant risk to public safety.

The hospital appealed, arguing the decision was unreasonable and seeking to introduce fresh evidence of the respondent's post-discharge deterioration and medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal held the Board's initial decision was reasonable on the record before it, but admitted the fresh evidence, which undermined the factual foundation of the Board's disposition.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a medium security facility, seeking a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant suffers from a serious psychiatric disorder, is resistant to treatment, lacks insight, and represents a serious risk to public safety if untreated.

The Board's order was held to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to a maximum-security facility.

The appellant argued that the hospital breached its statutory duty under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code by failing to provide notice of an increase in restrictions on his liberty.

The Court of Appeal accepted that a breach occurred, but found the issue moot given the Board's subsequent transfer decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was supported by unchallenged expert evidence from the treating physician that the appellant was not suitable for a medium-security placement.

The appellant abandoned his appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant was taken to the hospital by police under a Form 2 of the Mental Health Act and detained for a psychiatric assessment by the attending physician under a Form 1.

She was assessed and released within four and one-half hours.

The appellant sued the physician and hospital for false imprisonment and Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the action, finding that the detention complied with the Mental Health Act and that the provision of written notice of the right to counsel satisfied the appellant's Charter rights in this context.