Dr. Amanjot Sandhu

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for arson and weapons offences due to schizophrenia.

The hospital recommended a conditional discharge, noting the accused's compliance with treatment and stable independent living, despite some concerns regarding substance use and new weapons charges.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded that a conditional discharge, with close monitoring, is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including break and enter and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The accused has diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder and substance use disorders.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety.

A detention order was maintained with minor amendments to travel privileges to facilitate family visits.

The accused was charged with causing unnecessary pain to an animal after stomping on a Canada Goose gosling.

He was found unfit to stand trial due to frontotemporal dementia and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board found that he remains permanently unfit to stand trial as his neurocognitive disorder renders him unable to meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board also found that he currently poses a significant risk to the safety of the public due to his lack of community supports.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, agreeing with the joint recommendation of the parties, as it is the least onerous disposition capable of protecting the public.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon, was transferred from the community to a locked forensic unit due to high-risk behaviours and substance use.

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

The Board accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused's medications required adjustment and appropriate housing had not been identified.

The Board unanimously determined that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate, and ordered a continued detention disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault and uttering threats.

The accused's attending psychiatrist testified that the accused had maintained sobriety, completed addictions programming, and demonstrated insight into his schizoaffective disorder.

The hospital and the Attorney-General jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint submission and granted the accused an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for mischief and failing to comply with a release order.

The hospital and the Crown recommended a conditional discharge, noting the accused's significant improvement, medication compliance, and stable housing.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant risk to the public but concluded that a conditional discharge with conditions to take prescribed medication and reside at a specified senior residence was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and the Attorney-General jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's schizophrenia symptoms had resolved with treatment, she maintained abstinence from alcohol, and she demonstrated insight and remorse.

The Board found the accused no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The court sentenced Douglas Bowley for arson and uttering threats, following a finding of guilt for setting fire to a house he rented and threatening the owners.

The decision reviews the facts, Bowley’s mental health and addiction history, the impact on the victims, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 18 months for arson and concurrent 6-month sentences for uttering threats, followed by three years’ probation, emphasizing rehabilitation and the need for continued mental health support, rather than incarceration.