Brian Kenneth Adsett

The accused was referred to the Ontario Review Board after being found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and break and enter.

The Board held a hearing to determine her fitness and the appropriate disposition.

Based on the hospital report and psychiatric testimony, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to active psychosis and an inability to appreciate her legal situation.

The Board ordered that she be subject to a Detention Order at the hospital to safely manage her significant risk to public safety.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on charges of break and enter and uttering threats.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine the appropriate disposition.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from Bipolar 1 Disorder with psychotic features and concurrent substance use disorders, poses a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused be subject to a Detention Order at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton to allow for medication optimization, stabilization, and engagement in therapeutic programming.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the conditional discharge of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community but continued to experience breakthrough symptoms and required assistance with social boundaries.

The treating psychiatrist recommended continuing the conditional discharge but removing the specific residence requirement to allow the accused to move to a residential care facility.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight and risk of relapse if unsupervised, and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the requested modification.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and robbery.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had made progress and was preparing to transition to a supported residence in the community.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, as his ability to remain abstinent and manage stress in the community remains untested.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order as the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and breach of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder, sought an absolute discharge.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused lacks insight into his condition and would likely discontinue medication and increase alcohol consumption if discharged absolutely.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assaulting a peace officer and mischief.

At her initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board, evidence from her treating physician indicated she had made significant progress, understood the court process, and could meaningfully instruct counsel.

The Board accepted the uncontradicted medical evidence and the agreement of all parties, finding the accused fit to stand trial.

The Board ordered her returned to court and issued a Keep Fit Order in the interim.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for weapons offences and was detained at a psychiatric hospital.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and has a history of medication non-compliance, continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Order as the least onerous and restrictive disposition, but rejected a joint submission to include an abstinence clause, finding no evidence of prior substance use.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit three accused to stand trial for first degree murder in relation to a stabbing at an after-hours club.

The Crown advanced two routes to first degree murder: planning and deliberation, and constructive first degree murder during an unlawful confinement.

The court reviewed the evidence, including witness testimony and surveillance video, and found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could convict each of the accused of first degree murder under both theories.

All three accused were ordered to stand trial for first degree murder.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the defence sought to have the jury instructed to consider the post-event actions of paramedics and hospital staff when assessing the accused's intent.

The defence argued that these post-offence consequences were relevant to the common sense inference of intent, relying on R. v. Pittman and R. v. Boone.

The Superior Court of Justice rejected this request, holding that third-party post-offence conduct has no bearing on the accused's subjective intent at the time the firearm was discharged.

The court concluded that the common sense inference must be based on the natural and probable consequences of the act itself, not subsequent medical interventions.

During a trial for second degree murder, the accused brought a Corbett application to edit his extensive criminal record before testifying.

The accused argued that Gladue principles should be applied to the Corbett analysis, given his Indigenous background and the systemic discrimination faced by Indigenous persons.

The court agreed, holding that an accused's Indigenous background and the systemic factors contributing to their criminal record are relevant to balancing the probative value and prejudicial effect of the record.

The application was granted, and the court excluded the accused's prior crimes of violence and older youth offences, while permitting cross-examination on crimes of dishonesty.

During a murder trial, the Crown brought a KGB application to admit the transcript of an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) from a witness's prior guilty plea for substantive use.

The witness, who had pled guilty to attempt to obstruct justice, claimed a lack of memory regarding the events when testifying.

The court found that necessity was established by the witness's recantation and that procedural reliability was met because the ASF was sworn under oath, adopted during a guilty plea with counsel present, and subject to cross-examination at trial.

The application was granted, allowing the edited transcript to be used for the truth of its contents.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the constitutionality of recent Criminal Code amendments (Bill C-75) that abolished peremptory challenges and altered the challenge for cause procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the repeal of peremptory challenges violated the applicant's rights under sections 7, 11(d), and 11(f) of the Charter by denying him a fair trial with an independent and impartial jury, and that the repeal was overbroad.

The court struck down the repeal of the peremptory challenge provisions but upheld the amendments to the challenge for cause procedure.

The Crown and defence were permitted to exercise peremptory challenges as if the provision had not been repealed.

In a pre-trial motion for a murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce hearsay evidence from the deceased victim's wife regarding a 2013 robbery allegedly committed by the accused.

The court applied the principled exception to hearsay and the test for prior discreditable conduct.

The court found the identification evidence for the 2013 robbery was frail, failing to meet threshold reliability.

Furthermore, the prejudicial effect of admitting the unproven prior robbery and a related newspaper article outweighed its probative value.

The Crown's motion to introduce the evidence was denied.

During a jury trial for second degree murder, the defence brought a Corbett application seeking to restrict cross‑examination of the accused on prior convictions should he testify.

The accused had an extensive criminal record containing numerous recent offences, including robbery, break and enter, and breaches of court orders.

The court balanced probative value against the risk of prejudice and propensity reasoning.

Convictions for assault and assault with a weapon were excluded due to their similarity to the charged offence and the risk that the jury might improperly infer a violent disposition.

Other convictions, including robbery, were permitted because of their relevance to credibility and because exclusion would create a misleading picture of the accused’s criminal history.