3 total
Detention Order maintained for NCR accused with expanded travel privileges and reduced reporting requirements.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and assault with a weapon.
The accused sought a conditional discharge, while the hospital and Crown recommended maintaining the Detention Order with expanded travel privileges and reduced reporting.
The Board concluded that a Detention Order remained necessary to protect the public, given the accused's history of severe violence against family members and the risk of rapid decompensation related to his major depressive disorder.
The Disposition was amended to allow for approved travel and reduced reporting frequency.
The accused was sentenced to 8.5 years imprisonment for a brutal, unprovoked aggravated assault and robbery.
The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, robbery, and possession of stolen property following a trial in which he was acquitted of attempted murder.
The offences arose from a brutal and unprovoked attack on the victim at an ATM machine, involving repeated assaults, robbery of personal items, and leaving the victim for dead.
The victim sustained severe traumatic brain injury with diffuse axonal injury and nasal fracture, resulting in permanent disability and life-altering consequences.
The court imposed a sentence of 8.5 years imprisonment, with 2 years concurrent for robbery and 6 months concurrent for possession of stolen property, minus 20 months pre-sentence custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 10 months.
The accused was acquitted of attempted murder because the Crown failed to prove specific intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, despite a brutal and prolonged assault.
The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and possession of stolen property following a brutal assault on the victim in an ATM kiosk.
The accused admitted to the assault and the property offences but denied the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder.
The court found that while the assault was prolonged, violent, and repetitive, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused specifically intended to kill the victim.
The court acquitted on attempted murder but convicted on the admitted charges.
