Daniel R. Medd

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, was subject to an annual review of his disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused has schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

While he has been adherent to treatment in the hospital, his insight remains limited and his immigration status poses a barrier to community reintegration.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as a return to the community without supervision would likely lead to substance use, treatment non-adherence, and further offences.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention order with expanded community passes to facilitate reintegration.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, was subject to a discharge with conditions.

Following a dramatic deterioration in his mental status, including new paranoid delusions regarding his wife and family, the hospital requested an early hearing.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a detention order with conditions, concluding it was necessary to allow the treatment team to investigate the precipitating factors, manage his risk in the community, and approve his accommodations.

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 accused, previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition hearing.

The hospital and the Crown sought a continuation of his detention order with slight modifications, while the accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat due to his lack of insight, history of medication non-compliance, and risk of decompensation if discharged.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the removal of the abstention clause and a reduction in reporting frequency.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, sought a conditional discharge.

The hospital and Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention order with discretionary privileges.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing substance use and fluctuating insight, and that a detention order remains necessary to manage his risks in the community.

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

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

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his schizoaffective disorder, history of violence, and ongoing substance use issues.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the hospital, as a conditional discharge would not provide the necessary structure and supervision for his transition to the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of assault against his mother.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and an intellectual disability.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered that the accused be detained in the hospital's Forensic Program, with privileges and conditions including a prohibition on attending his mother's residence and a requirement that any community living privilege be in supervised accommodation.

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

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board found that the accused had maintained abstinence from substances, adhered to medication, and established a strong framework of community support.

Concluding that any remaining behavioural issues did not constitute a real risk of serious harm, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing to determine whether the accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges, remained unfit.

Based on the hospital report and psychiatric testimony, the Board found that the accused's mental state had stabilized in a supervised community setting and that she now met the criteria for fitness to stand trial.

The Board ordered the accused returned to court for a fitness determination pursuant to section 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, is currently detained at a mental health centre.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused's counsel jointly recommended continuing the current detention order, agreeing that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the evidence, noting the accused's ongoing need for electroconvulsive therapy and the difficulties in placing him in a long-term care facility.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the same terms as the previous year.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the existing detention order.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his lack of insight into his schizoaffective disorder, history of medication non-compliance, and ongoing struggles with substance abuse.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the addition of a weapons prohibition.

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

The hospital requested the accused be transferred from a Secure Forensic Service to a General Forensic Service with community living privileges, noting his symptoms were in remission and he was compliant with medication.

The Board accepted the hospital's recommendation, finding the transfer and privileges necessary and appropriate while maintaining public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the accused's fitness to stand trial on charges of assault and assault with a weapon.

The accused, who has treatment-resistant schizophrenia and a mild intellectual disability, had previously been found unfit.

Based on the hospital report and psychiatric testimony, the Board found that the accused now has a reality-based understanding of the proceedings, the roles of the parties, and the possible consequences.

The Board concluded the accused is fit to stand trial and remitted the matter back to court for adjudication.

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

The accused suffers from Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder, and has a history of medication non-compliance and substance use while in the hospital.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her lack of insight and risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition at the hospital, with the addition of a community living clause to motivate the accused and allow the clinical team to seek 24-hour supervised housing.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders, had his liberty restricted after relapsing on crack cocaine and exhibiting erratic behaviour in the community.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, particularly when using substances.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition at the hospital and found the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

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.