David Northcott

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to correct an oversight in the accused's previous disposition.

The accused had been found unfit to stand trial and was ordered transferred to a different hospital.

The previous disposition erroneously awarded him indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, which do not exist at that facility.

On consent of all parties, the Board ordered the deletion of the erroneous paragraph, leaving the rest of the disposition intact.

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

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and other disorders, and currently resides at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his limited insight, risk of medication non-compliance, and potential for violent recidivism.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with a transfer to North Bay and provisions for indirectly supervised community access.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible and permitted to live in the community, was returned to detention in hospital after testing positive for prohibited substances.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing to review the hospital's decision.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused's substance use caused significant deterioration and increased risk.

The Board found that the return to hospital was warranted and was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to manage the risk to public safety.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, was transferred to seclusion due to an ongoing risk and mental decompensation.

The hospital initiated a restriction of liberties (ROL) hearing after the accused was secluded for over seven days.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused was experiencing acute symptoms of psychosis, including making homicidal threats and exhibiting delusional behaviour.

The Board concluded that the hospital's decision to significantly increase the restriction on the accused's liberty by placing her in seclusion was warranted, necessary, and the least onerous measure available under the circumstances.

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

The accused sought a transfer to a less secure hospital.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused requires a longer period of stability, engagement in therapeutic programs, and better management of substance use issues before a transfer can be considered.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant risk to public safety and ordered no change to the current disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.

The accused, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, had recently exhibited aggressive behaviour, persistent persecutory delusions, and medication non-compliance.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's stability remains fragile and heavily reliant on close supervision.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his detention at the high secure provincial forensic program remain in place without transfer to a less secure facility.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with a probation order.

The Board accepted the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder and an acquired brain injury, continues to experience persecutory delusions and has engaged in aggressive behaviour requiring seclusion.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered no change to his current disposition, maintaining his detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Public Guardian and Trustee brought an application seeking to declare the respondent incapable of personal care and property management, and to be appointed as his permanent guardian.

The court found insufficient evidence to declare the respondent incapable of personal care, despite concerns about his living conditions.

However, the court found the respondent incapable of managing his property and removed his mother as guardian due to her failure to pass accounts and abide by a management plan, appointing the PGT in her place.

The moving party physician brought a motion under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act for authorization to administer anti-psychotic medication to the respondent pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The respondent, who was found not criminally responsible and detained at a psychiatric hospital, suffered from a delusional disorder and exhibited threatening behaviour.

The court found that the statutory criteria were met, as the respondent's condition was deteriorating, the treatment would likely improve his condition, the benefits outweighed the risks, and it was the least restrictive option.

The motion was granted.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 involving more than 30 victims and losses totalling approximately $285,234 over a four‑year period.

Many victims were seniors who paid for doors, windows, renovation work, or loans that were never delivered or repaid.

The court emphasized that large‑scale fraud is a serious offence where general and specific deterrence and denunciation are paramount.

Aggravating factors included the duration of the scheme, the number and vulnerability of victims, the calculated conduct, and the absence of restitution.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of two years and issued a stand‑alone restitution order but declined to impose probation or a DNA order.