Craig Loman Coughlan

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had remained stable in the community over the past year while residing in supportive housing and complying with medication.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to the risk of medication noncompliance and substance use without supervision.

Accepting a joint submission, the Board ordered a conditional discharge, requiring the accused to continue residing at his current supportive housing and abstain from intoxicants.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempt murder and aggravated assault after pushing a person onto subway tracks.

The hospital and Crown supported a continued detention disposition, but disagreed on whether the accused should be permitted indirectly supervised access to the subway.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

While acknowledging her progress, the Board rejected the hospital psychiatrist's recommendation for subway access, finding it premature and restricting her transit use to buses and street cars.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and failing to comply with probation.

The accused sought a conditional discharge, while the hospital and Crown recommended maintaining the detention disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia, paraphilia, and recent increases in socially inappropriate behaviours towards females.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition to ensure the hospital retains the ability to approve accommodation, while removing the substance abstention provision and reducing reporting requirements.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and weapons offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders, had been stable and was preparing for a gradual return to community living.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety if she decompensates.

The Board ordered the continuation of a detention disposition to manage the risk while supporting her reintegration.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other offences, has diagnoses of schizophrenia and severe stimulant use disorder.

Despite recent progress in a residential treatment program, the accused remains vulnerable to relapse and rapid mental health deterioration.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and carrying a concealed weapon, suffers from severe treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of medication noncompliance, violent behaviour, and lack of insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order, accepting expert evidence that the accused would not voluntarily return to the hospital if his mental state deteriorated.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found unfit to stand trial on a charge of sexual assault.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and borderline intellectual functioning.

Applying the fitness test, the Board found that the accused's profound thought disorder renders him incapable of communicating rationally with counsel or understanding his legal situation.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital, with discretionary privileges for supervised community living.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The treating psychiatrist provided uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychosis and a history of substance use, which are currently managed by medication and abstinence in a hospital setting.

The Board applied the Winko test and concluded that absent a detention disposition, the accused would likely decompensate and re-offend.

The Board ordered a renewal of the current detention disposition, noting that discharge planning is underway.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and mischief after shoving an elderly woman, causing her death.

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

Accepting a joint recommendation, the Board ordered the accused detained at a psychiatric hospital on a general forensic unit with discretionary privileges, including indirectly supervised community passes.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assault with a weapon, is currently subject to a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a continuation of the detention order, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his diagnoses of Schizophrenia and Polysubstance Use Disorder, and his history of rapid decompensation when non-compliant with medication.

The Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's opinion that the Mental Health Act would be inadequate to manage the accused's risk in the community.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Omar Ashraf Elkhodary guilty of assaulting Vicky Moscoe by pushing her during a confrontation over posters depicting child hostages.

The court carefully analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, rejecting Elkhodary's claim of self-defence.

The court applied the modern self-defence framework under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing the accused's purpose and reasonable belief of threat.

It concluded Elkhodary's actions were motivated by a desire to remove the posters rather than to defend himself, and that no reasonable grounds existed to believe force was being used or threatened by the complainant.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of her 16-year-old daughter, who suffered from severe cerebral palsy.

The Crown alleged the accused smothered the victim and staged a home invasion to cover it up.

The accused testified that two armed intruders entered the home searching for a package, and that one of them remained with the victim while the other searched the house.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles and found that the evidence of the home invasion, while containing some inconsistencies, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also acquitted the accused of manslaughter, finding insufficient evidence that she was capable of assisting the victim after the intruders left.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, Cindy Ali, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter.

Following a successful appeal of a prior conviction, she proceeded to a new trial without a jury.

The Crown alleged she smothered her daughter, either as a planned act (mercy killing), an impulsive act (second-degree murder), or through criminal negligence by failing to provide necessaries of life (manslaughter) during a staged home invasion.

The defence maintained her innocence, asserting a genuine home invasion by intruders or an accidental death due to seizure/aspiration.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's culpability, noting that both the defence's home invasion account and the Crown's staging theory were equally consistent with the evidence.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicant brought an application to stay proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was over 41 months, which included delay from the COVID-19 pandemic and a 5-month period where preliminary inquiries were vacated due to the Crown's interpretation of Bill C-75 amendments to the Criminal Code.

The court found the Bill C-75 delay was a discrete and exceptional event, as the state of the law was briefly in flux.

Deducting this time brought the net delay below the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, facing charges of criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, was detained on the secondary ground and later found unfit to stand trial.

After treatment, he was detained in hospital on a keep fit order under s. 672.29 of the Criminal Code.

On a 90-day detention review under s. 525, a preliminary issue arose regarding the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear the review given the concurrent keep fit order.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to conduct the s. 525 review, but any decision to release under s. 525 would not affect the continuing validity of the separate s. 672.29 detention order.

The court ultimately dismissed the s. 525 review, finding detention continued to be justified.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for the brutal beating of an 82-year-old woman during a home invasion.

The Crown sought 18 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years, citing the offender's Aboriginal background, mental illness, and the jury's recommendation.

The court found the offender posed a significant danger and set the base parole ineligibility at 18 years.

However, the court found that the 27 months the offender spent in administrative segregation constituted a gross violation of his s. 12 Charter rights against cruel and unusual treatment.

As a remedy, the court reduced the parole ineligibility period by 27 months, resulting in a final period of 15 years and 9 months.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a ruling that the recent amendments to the Criminal Code under Bill C-75 eliminating peremptory challenges operated retrospectively.

The accused argued that the right to challenge jurors is a substantive right.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the right to a jury trial is substantive, but the right to peremptorily challenge jurors is procedural.

Following recent jurisprudence, the court held that the elimination of peremptory challenges does not breach the right to a fair trial and applies prospectively to the accused's jury selection.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following a home invasion where an 82-year-old woman was beaten to death.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on first-degree murder, arguing the jury should only be left with second-degree murder or manslaughter.

The Crown argued first-degree murder could be established through planning and deliberation or constructive murder based on forcible confinement.

The court granted the directed verdict application, finding no evidence to support planning and deliberation, nor evidence of a discrete act of forcible confinement separate from the killing itself.

The jury was directed to return a verdict of acquittal on first-degree murder and subsequently convicted the accused of second-degree murder.

The Crown brought an application to admit a video statement made by the accused to police following his arrest for second-degree murder.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary, alleging his will was overborne by persistent questioning, inducements, and delayed cautions.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, noting the police did not offer inducements, the questioning was not oppressive, and the accused understood his rights.

The statement was ruled admissible subject to editing out specific prejudicial references.

This is a ruling on a Corbett application to determine the admissibility of the accused's criminal record for cross-examination on credibility during a trial for second-degree murder.

The court balanced the probative value and prejudicial effect of the record, considering the nature, similarity, and remoteness of previous convictions, and the need to prevent an unbalanced picture for the jury.

The judge decided to admit an edited version of the record, excluding drug offences, mischief over $5000, crimes indicating antipathy to the justice system (assault peace officer, escape lawful custody), sexual assaults, and possession of a firearm, while allowing crimes of dishonesty (theft, possession of stolen property) and some assaults and breaches of court orders, with aggravated assault reduced to assault.