Dr. Ahmed

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that continued a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's analysis was unreasonable because it improperly focused on the appellant's lack of insight into his medical condition rather than conducting a holistic assessment of whether he posed a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm to the public.

The Board also failed to adequately address conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's insight and did not provide sufficient evidentiary analysis of the relevant factors.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 21, 2018, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant argued that he no longer posed a significant danger to public safety due to improved insight into his mental illness, medication compliance, and stable employment and housing.

However, the court found the Board's concerns about recent cocaine use were reasonable given the appellant's history of manic episodes preceded by cocaine use and associated medication non-compliance.

The court allowed the appeal on the basis of transcription errors in the Board's reasons, which confused the appellant with another hospital patient and relied on irrelevant material.

A new hearing was ordered to take place as the appellant's annual review hearing in February 2019.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that he continue to be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, arguing he should be transferred to a less secure facility closer to his family.

The Board found that a transfer was premature given the appellant's ongoing threatening and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and owed deference.

Grandparents sought access and later custody of three grandchildren amid significant family conflict, mental health concerns affecting the mother, and competing custody claims by the parents.

Evidence showed the grandparents had long played a substantial caregiving role and provided stability, while the father of one child had disrupted the child’s relationships and misled professionals during a relocation attempt.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, emphasizing stability, sibling relationships, and the children’s emotional needs.

The court found that neither parent was presently capable of safely assuming primary care for the children.

Custody of all three children was granted to the grandparents with structured access for the parents.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied her claim for catastrophic impairment and terminated her income replacement benefits.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits, seeking funding for a catastrophic assessment rebuttal report and the reinstatement of her income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator applied a holistic approach to interim benefits and found that the applicant had a strong prima facie case.

The arbitrator held that the applicant had a vested contractual right to funding for a rebuttal report because her accident occurred before the 2010 SABS amendments eliminated that benefit.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay $10,500 for rebuttal reports and to reinstate the applicant's income replacement benefits at $374.16 per week pending the final arbitration.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined the appropriate remedy for a grievor who suffered harassment, discrimination, and a poisoned workplace based on sexual orientation, as well as the employer's failure to accommodate him.

The Board awarded $45,000 for the human rights breaches at the workplace, $35,000 for the failure to accommodate between 2003 and 2005, and $18,000 for the failure to accommodate between 2008 and 2010.

Claims for loss of spousal relationship, aggravated damages, punitive damages, special damages, and future wage loss were dismissed as too remote or inappropriate.

The Board also ordered the restoration of vacation credits and the inclusion of overtime and premium pay in the grievor's ongoing salary.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the conditions imposed were not the least onerous and restrictive and seeking supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the criterion and its decision was not unreasonable given the medical evidence, noting the conditions were less restrictive than the previous disposition.

The Crown appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting the respondent a conditional discharge.

The respondent, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had previously caused the death of a police officer while psychotic and unmedicated.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting the respondent's history of medication non-compliance, social isolation, and lack of relationship with his treatment team.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conditional discharge, and reinstated the hospital detention order permitting residence in the community.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from a medium security facility to the maximum security facility at Oak Ridge.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board's decision was not unreasonable, as it was based on evidence from hospital staff that the appellant could no longer be managed in a medium secure setting.

The court noted that intervening events and further medical evidence justified the change from a previous order.

The appeal was dismissed, though the court noted the appellant could request an early review to determine if management techniques used at Oak Ridge could be applied in a medium security facility.