Dean Fraser Embry

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had shown some clinical progress but experienced recent instability and an absconding incident.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with privileges up to and including residing in the community in supervised accommodation to ensure medication compliance.

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

The accused, diagnosed with ultra-treatment resistant schizophrenia, had been residing in the community under a Conditional Discharge.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight and the high risk of decompensation and violence if he were to discontinue his medication.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge with a treatment condition, but declined to impose a weapons prohibition.

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

The accused sought a conditional discharge, while the Hospital and Crown jointly recommended maintaining the existing detention order.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's schizophrenia, combined with his limited insight, guardedness, and lack of participation in structured activities, meant he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that maintaining the detention order with privileges for approved accommodation was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public.

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

The accused, who suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia, was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including arson and assault.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as his psychotic symptoms prevent him from having a reality-based understanding of the proceedings or communicating with counsel.

However, noting improvements in his behavioural control and impulse management, the Board ordered his transfer from a high-secure forensic hospital to a medium-secure facility, with privileges to access the community accompanied by staff.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a restriction of liberty imposed on an accused who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The hospital had transferred the accused from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit after he exhibited escalating risk behaviours, paranoia, and affective instability.

The Board found that the initial transfer and the ongoing restriction of liberty were the least onerous and least restrictive interventions necessary to manage the accused's risk of violence and untoward behaviour.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an Indigenous accused found not criminally responsible for murder and indignity to a dead body.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of medication non-compliance, and substance use disorder.

The Board ordered a continuation of his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with the addition of indirectly supervised community access and community living in approved accommodation.

Furthermore, applying Gladue principles, the Board ordered the preparation of a Gladue Report for the accused's next annual review to properly consider his unique circumstances as an Indigenous person.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking on charges arising from Toronto in 2021 and Durham in 2024.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years, reduced by one year for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, resulting in approximately two years and one day remaining to be served after credit for pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1 and credit for strict bail conditions.

The sentence was followed by two years of probation.

The court considered the accused's difficult background, including loss of his mother to suicide, exposure to violence and poverty, addiction issues, rehabilitative potential, and the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an NCR accused who was placed in seclusion at a mental health facility.

The accused's mental state had rapidly deteriorated due to medication changes and non-compliance, leading to agitation and aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that seclusion was necessary to manage the high risk of unpredictable physical violence.

The Board concluded that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary for public safety, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available.

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

The accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, has been living in the community in supported housing and has been compliant with his medication under supervision.

However, he lacks insight into his illness and has stated he would discontinue medication if no longer under the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board accepted expert evidence that discontinuation of medication would likely lead to an exacerbation of psychotic symptoms and an increased risk of violence.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded his risk could be safely managed under a less restrictive conditional discharge, subject to terms including a consent to treatment condition.

This decision addresses a Stage 1 application under sections 278.93 to 278.95 of the Criminal Code concerning the production of third-party records held by Covenant House in a sexual assault prosecution.

The accused sought records related to an incident report that might contain the complainant’s first statement about the alleged assault.

The court emphasized the high threshold for production of third-party records, requiring a demonstration of "likely relevance" and a "sufficient, case specific evidentiary or informational foundation." Mere existence of records or that they contain a prior statement is insufficient.

The application was dismissed as speculative, lacking evidence that the records would provide added information or impeachment value beyond Crown disclosure.

This sentencing decision addresses the serious offences committed by Abdisatar Aden, who pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm endangering life, aggravated assault, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession contrary to a prohibition order.

The case involved a shooting of an 18-year-old victim, Amadou Suwareh, who suffered life-threatening injuries but survived.

The decision carefully balances aggravating factors such as the use of a modified fully automatic firearm, prior weapons prohibition orders, and possession of crack cocaine for trafficking, against mitigating factors including an early guilty plea, social context evidence of systemic racism and disadvantage, and the offender’s remorse and family support.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence in the context of ongoing gun violence in Toronto.

This criminal retrial addressed the admissibility of evidence concerning an alleged sexual assault incident, where the accused had previously obtained a 'functional acquittal' on the mental element of sexual assault for that specific incident, though convicted on other factual bases within the same charge.

The defence invoked autrefois acquit and issue estoppel to bar the Crown from re-litigating the incident.

The court held that neither doctrine applied; autrefois acquit required a formal acquittal, which was absent, and issue estoppel was inapplicable because the matter was a retrial of the same charge, meaning no 'final determination' had been made on the issue, as per R. v. Cowan.

The accused, a former high school teacher, was charged with sexual assault against a former student, H.S., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused groomed the complainant and engaged in sexual activity with her on multiple occasions while she was a student, abusing a position of trust and authority.

The defence argued that the complainant's memory was unreliable and inconsistent, making it unsafe to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies and a lack of detail regarding the alleged sexual encounters, leading to an acquittal.

This criminal trial involved multiple allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference against A.R., a substitute teacher.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of each child complainant's testimony, noting significant internal and external inconsistencies and pervasive evidence of collusion among the witnesses, particularly influenced by one central complainant.

The defence did not call evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt for all complainants, concluding that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient to support convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, or even simple assault.

A.R. was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, a former teacher, was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against a former student, M.L., who was 15 at the time of the offence.

The sexual assault count was stayed under the Kienapple principle, and the court proceeded to sentence the accused on the sexual interference count.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's age, the significant impact on the victim, and the grooming behaviour by the accused.

Mitigating factors included the accused's first-offender status and strong community support.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and noting that conditional sentences are rarely appropriate for sexual offences against children, the court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, communication prohibition, and sex offender registry placement.

Henry Morales was found guilty by a jury of second-degree murder of his wife, Malena Morales, committed in 2006.

The court imposed a mandatory life sentence and determined the parole ineligibility period.

The Crown sought 16-18 years, while the defence argued for 12 years, reduced from 13 due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court considered aggravating factors, including domestic violence, abuse of trust, the presence of children during the murder, and post-offence conduct (staging the scene, flight to Mexico).

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, genuine remorse, pro-social behaviour while in Mexico, and participation in rehabilitation programs.

The court also extensively discussed whether harsh pre-sentence custody conditions could be a mitigating factor for parole ineligibility, concluding they could.

Ultimately, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 15 years, commencing February 20, 2020.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations against a teacher by two former students, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess competing evidence.

The court accepted the Crown’s evidence on one complainant’s counts, relying on the logic of her account, contemporaneous email evidence, and extrinsic evidence concerning the layout of the accused’s condominium, and rejected the accused’s denials.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to that complainant.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt on the counts involving the second complainant because of reliability concerns and implausibilities in her account, and entered acquittals on those counts.

This is an appeal from a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The original disposition became moot due to a subsequent detention order.

The appellant sought to incorporate the reasons from the new disposition into the current appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to hear it without a full and current record pertaining to the most recent disposition.

The accused brought an application for direction seeking a ruling that certain electronic communications exchanged between himself and the complainant over WhatsApp were not 'records' captured by s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code.

The communications involved social planning and discussions about drug use.

The court held that the communications did not contain personal information for which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the totality of the circumstances.

Therefore, the communications did not fall within the definition of 'record' under s. 278.1 and could be adduced at trial without a s. 278.92 hearing.

The appellant was convicted of drug offences arising from his participation in a conspiracy to import cocaine from Costa Rica to Toronto.

The conspiracy was thwarted and drugs were seized by Panamanian authorities.

The trial judge admitted laboratory evidence from Panamanian authorities obtained pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, which established that the seized substance was cocaine.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misinterpreted section 36(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and that the provision was unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that section 36(1) properly permits the admission of foreign records containing hearsay and opinion evidence without requiring proof of necessity or threshold reliability, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the constitutional challenge raised for the first time on appeal.