Dr. Candice Kung

The accused pleaded guilty to making available and possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material.

He had collected over 400 unique images since age 14 and uploaded three to a gaming app.

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

The court applied the framework from R. v. Pike, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

However, the court found that the accused's significant lifelong neurodevelopmental and medical conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, mild intellectual disability, and legal blindness, reduced his moral culpability.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation, concluding that a community-based sentence with strict computer restrictions would not endanger the public and would satisfy the principles of sentencing.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault due to schizophrenia, was reviewed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board proceeded in the accused's absence.

Based on the joint position of the parties and the hospital's evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain detained at the General Forensic Service at CAMH, with privileges up to residing in approved community accommodation, as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for robbery, attempted break and enter, and aggravated assault.

The Ontario Review Board held a disposition hearing under s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board ordered the accused detained at the Secure Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with conditions, including a prohibition from being within 500 meters of the index offences' location, and denied indirectly supervised passes.

The court considered whether Charles Duku was criminally responsible for arson and mischief, following a trial in which he was found guilty.

After conviction, the Crown sought a verdict of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under section 672.34 of the Criminal Code, based on psychiatric evidence that Mr. Duku was suffering from active psychosis at the time of the offence.

The court accepted the expert evidence and the respondent’s consent, finding that Mr. Duku was not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for robbery in 2005, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB).

The appeal concerned two conditions: the addition of "supervised accommodation" and the geographical scope of community living.

The appellant argued the "supervised accommodation" condition was unilaterally and unreasonably added without sufficient exploration, citing *Elster (Re)*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, distinguishing *Elster* on procedural fairness grounds, noting counsel had the opportunity to address the issue.

The appellant also argued the geographical scope was inconsistent with the Board's reasons, as the disposition limited community living to "Hamilton" post-transfer, while the Board intended "Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".

The Court agreed with the appellant on this point, finding the Board and parties assumed GTA included Hamilton, and ordered the geographical scope for both pre- and post-transfer accommodation to be "the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".