Daniel Brandes

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault in 2009, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for his annual disposition hearing.

The Board found that he continues to suffer from treatment-refractory schizophrenia, lacks insight into his illness, and remains a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board ordered that the accused continue to be detained on a General Forensic Unit at the hospital, with privileges up to living in the community in approved accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, had a successful year living in the community with support, remaining medication compliant and abstaining from substances.

However, due to his fragile mental health and risk of rapid decompensation if non-compliant with medication, the Board accepted the joint submission to maintain a Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit, with privileges up to and including community living.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order.

The accused had been transferred from Quebec.

The hospital and the Crown recommended a Conditional Discharge with conditions, including a prohibition on cannabis use and an obligation to provide samples, which the accused opposed.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and that the substance prohibitions were necessary, granting the Conditional Discharge with the requested conditions.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, who is aging and frail, did not attend the hearing.

Based on the unanimous recommendation of the hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused's counsel, the Board found that the accused no longer represents a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held a Restriction of Liberty hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible.

The accused had lost his community housing due to repeated rule infractions and was readmitted to the hospital.

The Board accepted a joint submission that the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous measure available given the accused's homelessness and need for supervision.

The current disposition was maintained.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for armed robbery and other offences.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and has a history of substance abuse.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

A Detention Order within the Forensic Service was issued, allowing for gradual privileges as his condition improves.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for breach of probation and other offences.

The accused suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and a substance use disorder.

During the review period, the accused relapsed into cannabis use, which exacerbated his psychotic symptoms and necessitated readmission to the hospital.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing symptoms, limited insight, and risk of decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order to ensure adequate supervision and the ability to rapidly readmit the accused if his mental state deteriorates.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder in 1991, has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and resides in the community under a detention order.

The majority of the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her treatment-resistant illness, lack of insight, and risk of rapid decompensation if she becomes non-compliant with medication.

The majority concluded that a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition to ensure the hospital retains authority over her housing and can rapidly readmit her if her mental state deteriorates.

A dissenting minority would have granted a conditional discharge.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for failing to comply with a probation order, sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of non-adherence, and risk of rapid decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order Disposition with an expanded geographic area to allow for cautious community reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder, had been living independently in the community under a Conditional Discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge with amended conditions, including the removal of travel duration limits and substance consumption prohibitions, to foster his reintegration and transition to community-based care.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The hospital had readmitted the accused from the community due to a decompensation in her mental state and an increase in delusional beliefs.

The Board found that the hospital's decision to restrict the accused's liberty was warranted, necessary, and the least onerous option.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of her Detention Order, with the removal of a substance testing condition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, had been detained at CAMH but was discharged to community housing in August 2024.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence from his treating psychiatrist that his insight had improved and he remained compliant with medication, the Board concluded that while he remains a significant threat to public safety, his risk can be adequately managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various assault and mischief charges.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had remained stable and treatment-compliant but recently used alcohol and cocaine-laced cannabis.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight into substance use and risk of decompensation.

The Board ordered a continued conditional discharge as the least restrictive disposition to manage his risk and maintain his housing and stability.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for various offences, suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, alcohol use disorder, and antisocial personality disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, noting his lack of insight, history of rapid relapse, and recent abscondments to consume alcohol.

The Board concluded that continuing the existing detention disposition with privileges was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk and support his mental health needs.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The treatment team and the accused sought an expansion of privileges to include indirectly supervised community access and living in approved community accommodations.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to diagnostic uncertainty, a history of medication noncompliance, and recent behavioral issues in the hospital.

While the Board granted indirectly supervised community access to support reintegration, it denied the privilege of community living, finding it premature and inconsistent with public safety.

The offender, Jean Guy Thibeault, was sentenced for manslaughter and aggravated assault.

The court found the manslaughter to be an aggravated instance due to the victim's vulnerability, the unprovoked and brutal nature of the attack involving multiple stomping blows, the high moral culpability, and the offender's indifference to the victim's fate.

No mitigating circumstances were identified, and the offender expressed no remorse.

The court imposed a sentence of twelve years imprisonment for manslaughter, reduced to seven years after credit for pre-sentence custody, and a concurrent sentence of two years imprisonment for aggravated assault.

Mandatory lifetime firearm prohibition and DNA orders were also issued.

During a trial for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, a voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of utterances made by the defendant to a detective.

The Crown sought to admit the statements, arguing they were voluntary and that any Charter breach should not lead to exclusion.

The defence contended the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of the defendant's rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, and thus should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court found the utterances voluntary and no infringement of s. 10(a).

However, it found a serious breach of s. 10(b) due to the police's failure to facilitate access to counsel for 4.5 hours after the defendant asserted his right.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore ruled the utterances inadmissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery committed against a taxi driver.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, taking into account the offender's Indigenous background, systemic factors, mental health challenges, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, while balancing the serious nature of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused sought a review of two detention orders related to charges including attempt murder, aggravated assault, and later, obstructing a peace officer.

The initial detention was based on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court reviewed alleged errors of law regarding the admissibility of bad character evidence and the assessment of the connection between the accused and his sureties.

It also considered changes in circumstances, including additional sureties and arguments about the strength of the Crown's case.

The application for review was dismissed, affirming the detention orders.

The accused, an anti-abortion activist, was charged with disobeying a court order pursuant to section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charge arose from her conduct on September 2, 2015, when she protested outside the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto carrying a sign and speaking to patients entering the clinic, attempting to persuade them not to have abortions.

The court found that her conduct breached paragraphs (c) and (h) of a 1999 injunction by disturbing and interrupting the functioning of the clinic and causing a nuisance within 500 feet of the premises.

The court distinguished the present case from a prior 2014 appeal decision where similar conduct had resulted in acquittal, finding that the evidence of disruption to clinic operations and impact on patients and staff was substantially different and more compelling.