Daniel Brandes

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for firearms offences.

The accused had been living in the community but experienced a brief readmission to the hospital due to substance use and subtle decompensation.

The hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the detention order, arguing the Mental Health Act was insufficient to ensure timely readmission if his mental state deteriorated.

The Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety but concluded a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

Relying on recent appellate jurisprudence, the Board imposed a conditional discharge with a modified 'Young clause' requiring the accused to attend and submit to hospital admission upon direction, enforceable under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused has diagnoses of Bipolar 1 Disorder and Substance Use Disorder.

The hospital's most responsible physician testified that while the accused is doing very well and is fully compliant with medication, she continues to represent a significant threat to public safety if the support of the treatment team were suddenly removed before a transition to a civil mental health team is established.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and failing to comply with probation.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and an intellectual developmental disorder.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused has no reality-based understanding of the proceedings and poses a significant threat to public safety, the Board unanimously found the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges and detained at CAMH.

At the initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital, the Attorney General, and amicus curiae all agreed that the accused was presently fit to stand trial.

Relying on the evidence of the treating physician, the Board found the accused fit to stand trial and directed that she be returned to court for a fitness hearing, without making a Keep Fit Order.

The 86-year-old accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The Board accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused suffers from a neurocognitive disorder with psychotic features and remains a significant threat to public safety due to his risk of psychotic exacerbation and limited insight.

Applying the principle of minimal intrusion, the Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions requiring the accused to reside at a long-term care facility and refrain from possessing incendiary devices.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other offences.

The accused had been living in the community, maintained medication compliance, abstained from substances, and developed good insight into his schizoaffective disorder.

Based on the hospital's evidence and a joint submission from the parties, the Board found that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and previously found unfit to stand trial.

At her initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the Board considered whether she had become fit.

Relying on the evidence of her treating psychiatrist and the accused's own testimony, the Board found she remained actively psychotic with complex delusions, including the belief that she is a 'Crown Empress' immune from prosecution.

Applying the Supreme Court's test in Bharwani, the Board concluded her delusions prevented a reality-based understanding of the proceedings.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial and a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health was issued to manage her risk and provide ongoing treatment.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of criminal harassment and assaulting a peace officer.

Based on the uncontradicted psychiatric evidence and a joint submission from the parties, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to significant and likely permanent cognitive impairment.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The existing detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health was continued without amendment.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, was detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

Her liberty was restricted when she was admitted as an inpatient due to severe psychiatric decompensation and medication non-compliance.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty.

The Board concluded that the restriction was justified, necessary, and the least onerous option available to ensure public safety and address the accused's mental health needs.

The accused was subsequently stabilized and discharged back to the community.

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

The accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder and autism spectrum disorder, did not attend the hearing.

Based on a joint submission and evidence from the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with a modification to reduce reporting to no less than once per month.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of the accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The accused's liberty was restricted when he was readmitted to the hospital after testing positive for cannabis, deteriorating compliance with community supervision, and exhibiting aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the restriction of liberty from February 19, 2026, to March 10, 2026, was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found unfit to stand trial on a charge of manslaughter.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and vascular dementia secondary to a traumatic brain injury.

Based on uncontradicted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, is likely permanently unfit, and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Ontario Review Board held a Restriction of Liberty hearing after the accused, who had been living in the community, was readmitted to the hospital.

The hospital presented evidence that the accused had become increasingly unreliable in attending appointments and had tested positive for substances, leading to a deterioration in his mental status.

The Board accepted the medical evidence that the accused was not yet ready to return to the community.

The Board found that the return to hospital was warranted and that his ongoing detention in the hospital was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault with a weapon.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the Detention Order, while amicus curiae for the accused sought a Conditional Discharge.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to experience active symptoms of schizoaffective disorder, complicated by substance use and medication non-compliance.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

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

The accused had previously been found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault, and other offences.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the attending psychiatrist that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing substance use issues and poor judgment in associates.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with a residence clause to ensure adequate supervision and monitoring.

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

The Board accepted uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused, who has schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, poses a significant threat to public safety due to a history of medication non-compliance and substance use.

The Board ordered a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community living privileges, finding it the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage his risk and ensure rapid readmission if his mental state deteriorates.

The hospital significantly restricted the accused's liberty by transferring him from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit after he repeatedly absconded and used substances while on community passes.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the restriction.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary for public safety, and the least onerous and least restrictive option, given the accused's calculated elopements, lack of insight, and need for a highly structured environment.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was found NCR for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, has diagnoses of schizophrenia and polysubstance use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, supported by the treating psychiatrist's evidence, that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but has made positive progress in community living.

The Board ordered that the existing detention order be continued with a variation to reduce reporting requirements to not less than once every two weeks.

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

The hospital and Crown sought to add a residence condition requiring the accused to live with his parents, citing concerns about medication compliance and stability if he moved out.

The accused opposed the residence condition.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and that residing with his parents is a key factor in managing his risk and ensuring medication compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the added residence condition.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had remained stable in the community under a conditional discharge, with no incidents of violence or substance use.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the conditional discharge, noting that the accused's insight remained variable and a transition to a non-forensic community provider was still pending.

The Board found that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of medication non-compliance and relapse.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, applying the principle of minimal intrusion, but removed the condition requiring absolute abstinence from alcohol and drugs given the accused's sustained period of abstinence.