Bryan Kolman

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, resides in the community and has made progress in medication adherence with significant support.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to limited insight and risk of relapse.

The current disposition discharging the accused on conditions was maintained.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, remained stable and compliant with medication but continued to present negative symptoms.

The Board accepted the joint submission and psychiatric evidence that without Board supervision, the accused would likely stop taking medication, become psychotic, and pose a significant threat to the public.

The Board ordered that the conditional discharge be continued as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The defendant, Mayuran Sritharan, was charged with assaulting his younger brother with a butcher knife and uttering threats to cut his throat.

The complainant testified that during an argument, the defendant retrieved a butcher knife, held it above his head, pointed it at him, and threatened him in Tamil.

The complainant felt concerned for his safety and called the police.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness.

Applying the legal principles for assault with a weapon and uttering threats, the court determined that the defendant's actions and words, coupled with the complainant's genuine fear, met the actus reus and mens rea for both charges.

The applicant, who had been in custody for eight months on various assault charges, applied for a bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary ground due to the applicant's lengthy criminal record and history of breaching court orders.

The court found that while there were secondary ground concerns, the applicant had already served the equivalent of 12 months, which approached the likely sentence of 12 to 15 months if convicted.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court held that the risk of the applicant serving a disproportionate sentence outweighed the secondary ground concerns, and ordered his release on a recognizance with his mother as a surety.

A young person was convicted of multiple offences arising from a home invasion style robbery committed on August 8, 2011.

The offences included unlawfully being in a dwelling, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, threatening death, and robbery while armed with a firearm.

The Crown applied to designate the offences as serious violent offences under section 42(9) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person facilitated entrance into the victims' apartment and was a party to the offences, though he did not directly participate in the physical violence.

The victims suffered substantial physical and psychological harm, including one victim having his thumb and toe severed.

The court granted the Crown's application for serious violent offence designation and imposed a custodial sentence.