Daniel R. Medd

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for criminal harassment and failure to comply, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (the "Board") decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board misapplied the "significant threat" test and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight into his mental illness and medication needs, and his stated desire to discontinue medication.

The court emphasized the deference owed to the Board's determinations and found its decision reasonable.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 6, 2019.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, appealed a conditional discharge disposition that prohibited him from driving and required abstinence from alcohol.

The appellant argued the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his suspended driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable and supported by evidence, but expressed concern about the lack of information available regarding the licence suspension and directed that detailed information be obtained for the next review.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and ordered detained at Waypoint Centre, a maximum security facility.

On appeal, the appellant sought to have the detention order set aside and a new hearing directed to consider placement at Ontario Shores, a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that while the appellant's recent conduct was positive, the Board was required to consider the entire picture, including the serious nature of the mental illness, the long history of mental disorder accompanied by serious criminal activity, past non-compliance with medication, and demonstrated history of quick decompensation and violence when medication was discontinued.

The court found the Board's conclusion that a transfer to medium security was premature was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2017, challenging the Board's addition of a "24-hour-a-day" supervision requirement to a community accommodation condition.

The appellant contended this requirement was not part of the joint submission made at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, determining that the hearing transcript clearly showed counsel for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health had proposed a housing clause specifically including 24-hour staff supervision, which the appellant's counsel had supported.

The Board's disposition therefore accepted the parties' joint submission rather than departing from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board dated January 5, 2017, which ordered his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Provincial Forensic Division.

The appellant did not challenge the Board's finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety but argued that his transfer from CAMH to Waypoint was not necessary and appropriate for managing that risk.

He contended that the Board failed to consider the context of his behaviour and that the announcement of his transfer triggered his deterioration.

He also argued the Board did not give sufficient weight to the disruption of his therapeutic and familial relationships.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and amply supported by evidence.

The appellant, who had a long history of mental illness, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for robbery and resisting arrest.

He appealed the finding, arguing it was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the psychiatric evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellant was incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The NCRMD verdicts were set aside, a conviction was entered for robbery, and a new trial was ordered for resisting arrest.

The appellant was sentenced to one day in jail for the robbery, considering the 44 months he had already spent in custody.

The appellant appealed his 3-year sentence for break and enter and theft, arguing the sentencing judge failed to give adequate reasons and failed to consider his expressions of remorse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons were sufficient as the judge adopted the Crown's submissions and emphasized public protection.

The Court also found the appellant's remorse was not genuine, as he disputed factual findings and blamed the victims.