David W. Shannon

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing a detention order.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly apply the statutory test for significant threat and failed to adequately explain why a detention order was the least onerous disposition.

The Court of Appeal held the Board's decision was reasonable, noting the appellant's refusal to take psychotropic medication for his delusional beliefs and the ongoing risk to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused, who has mild intellectual disability and bipolar disorder, experienced a lengthy hospitalization during the reporting year due to medication non-adherence and manic episodes involving aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the expert evidence of the hospital representative, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A continuation of the current Detention Order Disposition was deemed necessary and appropriate.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges including sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm.

He has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board.

Following a change in his medication regimen, including the introduction of Amisulpride, his mental health substantially improved.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused's counsel jointly submitted that he is now fit to stand trial.

The Board applied the fitness test from Bharwani and concluded that the accused has a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and can meaningfully participate.

The Board unanimously found the accused fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court pursuant to section 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code, while maintaining his current disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault after stabbing her partner.

At her initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and Crown sought a Detention Order, while the accused sought a Conditional Discharge.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, mood lability, and a history of medication non-compliance.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage her risk, as the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to ensure her continued treatment and supervision.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for failing to stop for police and taking a motor vehicle without consent.

The hospital and the Attorney General initially sought a continuation of the conditional discharge, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the accused was medication compliant, functioning well in the community, and had been accepted by a non-forensic community support team.

Applying the test from Winko, the Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

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

The accused, who was previously living in the community, was admitted to the forensic inpatient unit after experiencing rapid decompensation, manic symptoms, and medication noncompliance.

All parties agreed that the restriction was justified.

The Board found that the restriction of liberties was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for her mandatory annual hearing.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly submitted that she remains a significant threat to public safety and that her current detention disposition should continue.

The Board accepted the joint submission, relying on expert psychiatric evidence that the accused's limited cognitive capacity and lack of insight into her illness pose a real risk of harm, particularly when she is non-compliant with medication.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition on the same terms.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her attending physicians' finding that she was incapable of managing her property.

The appellant argued the assessment was flawed and that her limited income negated the need for property management.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decision.

The court found that the appellant's delusional beliefs regarding property ownership and marriage prevented her from understanding information relevant to her housing and discharge planning, thereby satisfying the test for incapacity.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his status as an involuntary psychiatric patient under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider his mobility issues when assessing his risk of harm to others and erred by refusing to make comments regarding his long-term detention.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence of recent assaults, and that the Board was not required to make comments on the conditions of detention.