Christopher Dobson

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for invitation to sexual touching and break and enter.

The accused sought a discharge on conditions, while the hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the detention order.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder, substance use disorder, and paraphilia, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that a detention order remained the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage his risk, as he requires close supervision to ensure medication compliance.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine whether the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of aggravated assault, continued to be unfit and to determine the appropriate disposition.

The accused, suffering from Korsakoff's Dementia, was unable to participate and the hearing proceeded in her absence.

Based on the medical evidence and a joint submission, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial and granted a conditional discharge, allowing her to remain at her current long-term care facility with a weapons prohibition and a no-contact order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and sexual interference.

Based on a joint submission and expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to active symptoms of schizophrenia and the risk of medication non-adherence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Disposition with expanded pass privileges to facilitate the accused's eventual transition to a group home.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges including harassment and assault.

Based on the expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist and a joint submission from the parties, the Board found that the accused's schizophrenia and delusional beliefs were sufficiently managed by medication to render him fit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the accused returned to court and issued a Keep Fit Order to ensure his continued medication adherence and fitness pending trial.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and resisting arrest.

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

Based on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to severe intellectual disability and schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with privileges, finding she requires a highly structured 24/7 supervised setting to manage her complex needs and mitigate the high risk of violent reoffending.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for theft under $5000.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cognitive deficits, had been residing in a locked long-term care unit and demonstrated significant stability and compliance with treatment.

The treatment team, the hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended an absolute discharge.

Applying the test from Winko, the Board concluded that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and history of decompensation linked to cannabis use.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was insufficient to manage the risk and ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including a prohibition on cannabis use and a requirement to report four times per month.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and an indecent act.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported an absolute discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's risk to public safety was well-managed by his placement in a long-term care facility, a Community Treatment Order, and his declining physical health.

Concluding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and Substance Use Disorder, had transitioned to living in the community but remained vulnerable to relapse due to isolation and lack of structured activities.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order remains necessary to facilitate rapid readmission if he decompensates.

The detention disposition was continued, with an expansion of community passes to the Province of Ontario.

An Indigenous offender was sentenced for three counts of aggravated assault, breach of recognizance, and assault.

The offender stabbed three men without provocation while significantly intoxicated and in breach of a bail condition prohibiting weapon possession, and subsequently assaulted a nurse during detention processing.

The court applied Gladue principles, considering the offender's intergenerational trauma stemming from residential schools, post-traumatic stress disorder, and lack of prior criminal record.

The court imposed a sentence of time served (388 days on a 1.5-1 basis) plus three years of probation, rejecting the Crown's request for 4-6 years imprisonment and the defence request for 6 months time served.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at a residence.

Cocaine was found in a bedroom and the kitchen.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive or joint possession.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the first accused occupied the bedroom or that the second accused had a measure of control over the drugs found in the common kitchen area.

Both accused were acquitted.

The defendants pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences involving child pornography, sexual abuse of a two-year-old child, and related crimes.

The Crown sought 12 years imprisonment, while defence counsel argued for 4-5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, with credit for 14 months of pre-trial custody at time and a half (21 months), resulting in a net sentence of 5 years and 3 months.

The judgment emphasizes the principles of denunciation and deterrence in child sexual abuse cases while maintaining proportionality to the offenders' degree of responsibility.

The defendants brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit regarding their alleged impecuniosity, which was served six months after the deadline set by a court-ordered timetable.

The court denied leave, finding that plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide a reasonable, good faith explanation for the delay and had ignored the court's explicit direction to research the evidentiary requirements for impecuniosity before drafting the initial materials.

The accused pleaded guilty to making available child pornography, two counts of surreptitiously observing and recording a person who could reasonably expect to be nude, accessing child pornography, and possessing child pornography.

The offences occurred between January 1, 2008 and December 2, 2011.

The accused had accumulated thousands of images and videos of child pornography, including images depicting prepubescent children engaged in sexual acts.

The accused also secretly recorded his thirteen-year-old nephew in a bedroom and bathroom.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought twelve to eighteen months.

The court imposed a twenty-three-month jail sentence followed by three years probation, with ancillary orders including SOIRA registration, DNA order, and a prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code.