Dr. Andrew Wang

The 77-year-old accused stabbed and killed his apartment building manager and wounded the manager's wife, driven by a delusional belief that the manager was having an affair with the accused's wife and was mocking him.

The accused admitted to the physical acts but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

Relying on the expert evidence of two forensic psychiatrists, the court found that the accused suffered from Delusional Disorder which rendered him incapable of rationally applying his general understanding of moral wrongfulness to his specific circumstances.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, and was remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital requested an early hearing to amend the residency condition of the accused's conditional discharge.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences, had been accepted into a permanent community group home.

The out-patient psychiatrist testified that the move would not increase the accused's risk to the public.

The Ontario Review Board found that the transition did not pose a significant threat to public safety and granted the amendment to the disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for multiple violent and weapons-related offences, was subject to an annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused had made significant progress, maintaining stability, medication compliance, and abstinence from substances while transitioning to community living.

The Board applied the Winko test and found that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, the risk could be appropriately managed with a Conditional Discharge.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with specific terms, including provisions for immediate return to the hospital if his mental state deteriorates.

Sentencing for multiple voyeurism offences, making child pornography, sexual assault, and a firearms offence arising from surreptitious recordings of women and a child in a family home over two distinct periods.

The court treated the bathroom-camera offences and child pornography offence as the most serious conduct, emphasizing the invasion of sexual integrity, the victims' reasonable expectation of privacy, and a profound breach of trust within the home.

A conditional sentence was rejected because denunciation and deterrence predominated and a community-based sentence would depreciate the gravity of the offences.

Applying proportionality and totality, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of 30 months, reduced by 10 days' credit for pre-trial custody.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on the testimony of the attending forensic psychiatrist and the accused's sustained stability, treatment adherence, and lack of symptoms, the Board concluded the accused did not pose a real and substantial risk to the public.

An absolute discharge was granted.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine the fitness of the accused to stand trial on multiple charges, including threatening death and possession of a weapon.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, was previously found unfit and placed on a treatment order.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused lacked a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and the ability to meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board found the accused unfit to stand trial and issued a detention order with conditions at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

Crown application for a "High Risk Accused" designation under s. 672.64(1) of the Criminal Code for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (schizophrenia) for serious violent offences including robbery, attempted break and enter, and two counts of aggravated assault.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the offences were serious and brutal in nature, the Crown failed to establish a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence endangering another's life or safety.

The accused has responded well to treatment, is currently symptom-free, and demonstrates insight into his condition, though uncertainty remains regarding his adherence to treatment if released into the community without supervision.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and appeared for his initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and Crown recommended a detention order with conditions, noting the accused's bipolar disorder, history of medication non-compliance, and the serious nature of the index offence.

The Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention at the hospital with modified conditions, including strict reporting requirements and a geographic restriction.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences.

The accused has schizoaffective disorder and continues to experience auditory command hallucinations.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his chronic, treatment-resistant mental illness and poor insight.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores, with privileges up to living in the community in supervised accommodation, as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage his risk.

The accused, Justice Snache, was charged with second-degree murder.

The trial proceeded in two stages: first, to determine guilt based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, and second, to determine criminal responsibility due to mental disorder.

The court found that the Crown proved the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the actus reus and mens rea, based on the agreed facts and the accused's admission.

However, the court then considered the Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) defence under Section 16 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, particularly from Dr. Naidoo, the court found that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral and legal wrongfulness of his actions.

Consequently, the accused was found not criminally responsible for the murder and remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for disposition.