Elena Davies

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who had been found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused was readmitted to the hospital after showing signs of decompensation and refusing his medication at his group home.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive measure, given the accused's history of rapid decompensation and risk to public safety when non-compliant with medication.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, mischief, and robbery.

The Board found that while the accused had made significant progress, including abstaining from substances for two years and maintaining employment, he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness and vulnerability to substance use relapse.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, removing the strict abstinence condition but maintaining testing to monitor his transition into the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an early review and restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found NCR for child abduction and other offences.

The hospital requested a transfer of the accused's care to the Brockville Mental Health Centre and the removal of community living passes, citing her lack of progress, rule-breaking, and antisocial personality disorder.

The Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and approved the transfer to Brockville, noting it offered better programming and a graduated privilege structure.

However, the Board declined to remove the community living passes, finding the disposition did not need to be more restrictive.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty and conduct an annual review of his disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for arson and assault with a weapon, had his liberty restricted by the hospital due to repeated aggressive and assaultive behaviour towards staff.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least restrictive option available.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

A detention disposition was ordered with flexible terms to facilitate the accused's urgently needed transfer to another facility, which would better meet his mental health and dietary needs.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on multiple charges including assault and mischief.

At his initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the Board found that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of major mental illness, non-compliance with treatment, and recent severe psychotic decompensation.

Accepting a joint submission, the Board ordered a detention order with permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation, noting his recent stabilization and engagement in treatment.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for mischief and an indecent act, was readmitted to the hospital following a decompensation in his mental health triggered by sub-optimal medication and cannabis use.

This readmission constituted a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty, triggering a mandatory hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was reasonable, warranted, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to manage his risk and stabilize his condition.

The offender was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, uttering death threats, and criminal harassment after abducting a stranger at knifepoint and holding her captive for nearly two hours.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the high degree of planning, prolonged confinement, and deliberate cruelty.

The court granted the Crown's application to delay parole eligibility to one-half of the sentence.

Additionally, based on expert psychiatric evidence indicating a high risk of violent sexual reoffending, the court designated the offender as a Long-Term Offender and imposed a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for violent offences including attempted murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been stable on long-acting injectable medication and was transitioning to live with his parents, who were the victims of the index offences.

While the treating psychiatrist and all parties recommended a conditional discharge, the majority of the Board concluded that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition to ensure rapid readmission if his mental health decompensated.

A minority would have granted a conditional discharge.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his bipolar disorder and history of substance use.

However, noting his recent stability on Lithium and abstention from cannabis, the Board ordered a conditional discharge.

The Board declined to impose a mandatory treatment condition, finding it unnecessary given the accused's current insight and voluntary compliance with his medication regimen.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for killing or injuring animals, breach of probation, and criminal harassment.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his major mental illness and history of substance use.

However, noting his sustained progress, insight, and abstinence from substances, the Board accepted a joint submission and granted a conditional discharge.

With the accused's consent, the Board also imposed a treatment order under s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code to ensure continued medication compliance during his transition to independent living.

The Hospital sought an early review of the accused's conditional discharge, citing medication non-compliance and disengagement from treatment.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for harassment, had reduced his antipsychotic medication and stopped attending required hospital appointments.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused continued to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was no longer sufficient to manage the risk and ordered a detention disposition.

However, the Board declined the Hospital's request to transfer the accused to a facility in Brockville, finding that maintaining his connection to the Ottawa community was appropriate unless further deterioration occurred.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for violent offences and diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, eloped from the hospital and used substances.

Upon his return, the hospital restricted his community privileges.

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

The Board found that both the initial and ongoing restrictions of liberty were justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive options available to ensure public safety while the accused's medications were optimized and his progress monitored.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment.

The accused had previously been found NCR for similar offences against the same victim and was subject to a Detention Order.

While on a conditional release, he breached non-communication orders and traveled to the victim's city, leading to the new charges.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing erotomanic delusions, marginal insight, and active cannabis use.

The Board ordered a Detention Order mirroring his previous disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review hearing.

The hospital and the accused's counsel submitted that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety, a position ultimately adopted by the Attorney General.

The Board found that the accused had made sustained progress, was stabilized on medication, and had not acted violently in years.

Applying the Winko threshold, the Board concluded the accused no longer posed a significant threat and ordered an absolute discharge.

Ryan G. Gorman, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other offences, underwent his annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The Hospital recommended an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Attorney General opposed, citing recent stressors, increased cannabis use, and non-compliance with residence conditions.

The Board found that the accused's recent behaviour mirrored his pre-index offence conduct, demonstrating partial insight and fragility in protective factors.

The Board concluded he continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continued conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on breach of probation charges.

The hospital and Crown argued the accused remained permanently unfit and posed a significant threat to public safety, necessitating continued supervision.

The accused's counsel conceded permanent unfitness but argued the significant threat threshold was no longer met due to years of stability at a supervised group home.

The Board agreed with the accused, finding that while he remains permanently unfit due to a neurocognitive disorder, the risk of serious harm is speculative given his prolonged lack of aggression, medication compliance, and the ongoing authority of his wife as substitute decision-maker.

The Board concluded the accused does not pose a significant threat and remitted the matter to the court to consider a stay of proceedings.

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

The accused had been found not criminally responsible for assault.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the hospital's most responsible physician, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, a history of substance use, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge without adding the travel restrictions proposed by the hospital and the Crown, finding them unnecessary given the accused's compliance and therapeutic alliance.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for harassment and public mischief offences.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the assessing psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and is currently untreated, poses a significant threat to public safety due to a risk of causing serious psychological harm.

The Board ordered a Detention Order at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with conditions, including a prohibition on internet access without approval, to allow for assessment of capacity to consent to treatment and management of his risk.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for harassment and public mischief offences stemming from persistent delusional complaints against a police officer.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from untreated schizophrenia and lacks insight, poses a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of continued psychological harm to others.

The Board ordered a Detention Order at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to facilitate assessment of his capacity to consent to treatment and to manage his risk, with privileges to reside in the community once approved.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and criminal harassment.

The accused had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

The majority of the Board found that the accused had made significant progress, demonstrated strong insight, and no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge, with one member dissenting in favour of a conditional discharge.