Dr. Chaimowitz

The accused was found not criminally responsible for breaking and entering and sexual assault.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the accused was absent and his whereabouts were unknown.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder, represents a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his nonadherence to treatment, ongoing substance use, and recent escalating behaviour involving a knife.

The Board ordered a detention order with discretionary privileges, requiring immediate hospital admission.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for three counts of failing to stop after an accident, while simultaneously being convicted of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

At his initial Ontario Review Board hearing regarding the NCR findings, the hospital's forensic psychiatrist testified that the accused did not suffer from a major mental illness, lacked antisocial traits, and posed a very low risk of reoffending.

The Board accepted this evidence, finding that the accused did not meet the threshold of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Consequently, the Board ordered an absolute discharge in relation to the NCR offences.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for second-degree murder after stabbing his cousin.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of cannabis use disorder, and the recent nature of his symptom management.

The Board ordered his detention at a forensic psychiatry program with strict conditions, including absolute abstinence from intoxicants and a graduated, highly supervised approach to community access privileges.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for three counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board unanimously found that the accused, who suffers from bipolar disorder, represents a significant threat to public safety, particularly when driving in a manic state.

By a 3-2 majority, the Board ordered a Detention Order with conditions, including a strict driving prohibition, prioritizing public safety over the accused's employment and family access needs.

The dissenting members would have omitted the driving prohibition, finding it unnecessary to manage the risk.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision to continue his conditional discharge and deny his Charter application for an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and refusal to grant an absolute discharge were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also found no Charter breach, as the Board’s decision was based on public safety, not resource limitations.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for break and enter, assault, and forcible confinement.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether the accused posed a significant threat to public safety.

The hospital and the Crown recommended a detention order, while the self-represented accused, assisted by amicus, sought a conditional discharge.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused lacks insight into his schizophrenia, has a history of medication non-compliance and substance abuse, and requires a thorough assessment.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and imposed a detention order with conditions, including a prohibition on contacting the victim.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson after setting fire to his home while experiencing hallucinations related to Parkinson's Disease.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Hospital and Attorney General recommended a detention order, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The Review Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his cognitive decline, history of alcohol use, and lack of insight.

A detention order was imposed to allow the Hospital to assess his medical needs, medication compliance, and appropriate supportive housing.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after stabbing a stranger who was trying to help him.

The accused conceded he caused the death but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the psychotic episode was solely substance-induced due to the accused's heavy drug use.

The court applied the holistic approach, considering the internal cause and continuing danger factors, and found the accused suffered from a pre-existing delusional disorder that was operative at the time of the offence.

The court concluded the accused lacked the capacity to know his act was morally wrong and rendered a verdict of not criminally responsible.

The appellant, Brandon Mott, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found him incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic medication.

Mott, diagnosed with schizophrenia, denied his illness and argued the Board failed to consider reported side effects and the role of substance use in his mental health history.

The Board had concluded Mott was unable to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of declining treatment due to his inability to recognize the manifestations of his mental condition, a finding upheld by the court.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's decision.

The appellant, Raymond Mitchell, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his transfer from a medium-security facility to a high-security unit.

He argued the Board erred by not adequately considering Gladue principles and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to transfer reasonable given the appellant's history of disruptive and violent behaviour and public safety risk.

However, the Court noted the Board's consideration of Gladue principles was inadequate, emphasizing the need for a "different method of analysis" for Indigenous individuals in psychiatric facilities, even if it doesn't mandate a different outcome.

The appellant appealed his indeterminate sentence following a dangerous offender designation.

He had pleaded guilty to sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, choking, and uttering threats.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by focusing on whether his addictions could be cured rather than managed, and by failing to adequately consider a long-term supervision order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered the appellant's intractable substance abuse, which was directly linked to his violent offending, and reasonably concluded his risk could not be safely managed in the community.

Jeffery Smith, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant public safety threat.

The ORB, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, found that despite a treating psychiatrist's opinion, other expert opinions and the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and recent concerning behaviour (stunt driving and dishonesty) indicated a continued significant threat to public safety without ORB oversight.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day for drug trafficking and related offences.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's conduct of his defence as an aggravating factor and by failing to consider collateral immigration consequences.

Admitting fresh evidence of the appellant's acceptance into a residential treatment program and considering his severe PTSD from being a child soldier in Sierra Leone, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The accused stabbed a stranger in a hospital and advanced on a police officer with a knife, resulting in the accused being shot.

He had a long history of schizophrenia and substance abuse.

The central issue was whether his psychosis at the time of the offences was a disease of the mind or a self-induced state caused by voluntary drug consumption (Concerta).

The court applied the Bouchard-Lebrun framework and found that the accused's underlying mental health issues and substance abuse were inextricably linked.

The court concluded the accused was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing his acts were wrong, and found him not criminally responsible.

The accused, charged with attempted child abduction, assault, and forcible confinement, brought a bail review application seeking to vacate the strict conditions of his consent release.

The Crown opposed the application, citing the accused's mental health issues and risk of reoffending.

The Superior Court of Justice found a material change in circumstances due to the filing of a direct indictment, the passage of 28 months without breaches, and police evidence suggesting mistaken identity in one of the incidents.

Applying the ladder principle, the court allowed the application in part, deleting the strict house arrest condition while maintaining the other protective terms.

The respondent, representing a class of seriously mentally ill inmates and inmates held in prolonged administrative segregation, brought a class action against Ontario for Charter breaches and systemic negligence.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that Ontario's use of administrative segregation violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter, and awarded $30 million in aggregate Charter damages.

Ontario appealed, arguing that the Charter breaches were not established for all seriously mentally ill inmates, that Charter damages were inappropriate due to good governance concerns, and that the negligence claim was barred by statute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings that administrative segregation of seriously mentally ill inmates constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, that Ontario's clear disregard for inmates' rights justified Charter damages, and that the operational implementation of segregation policies grounded a valid systemic negligence claim.

The union filed multiple grievances alleging that the grievor was subjected to harassment, discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal by her co-workers and management at the Ministry of Transportation following a health reassignment.

The grievor sought $10 million in damages.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievances, relying on extensive medical evidence from multiple Independent Medical Examinations which concluded that the grievor suffered from a psychiatric impairment characterized by paranoid delusions and a persecution complex.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's perceptions of harassment were fundamentally compromised by her medical condition and that the employer had acted reasonably and appropriately in investigating her complaints and managing her accommodation.

The defendant Aviva General Insurance Company brought a motion seeking to amend its Statement of Defence and compel the plaintiffs, Johanna Van Dijk-Alac and John Alac, to attend various defence medical examinations.

The plaintiffs claimed psychiatric, neuropsychological, and physical injuries from a motor vehicle accident, and Mr. Alac claimed for lost guidance, care, and companionship.

The court granted Aviva leave to amend its Statement of Defence.

It ordered Ms. Van Dijk-Alac to attend psychiatric and neuropsychological examinations, and Mr. Alac to be available to the psychiatrist for collateral information, but denied Aviva the discretion to unilaterally change experts or pre-determine the number of examination sessions.

The court also denied Aviva's request to be relieved of its obligation to serve expert reports prior to the pre-trial.

The court redetermined Charter damages in a class action concerning administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries, following an appeal that set aside the initial damages award.

The Court of Appeal affirmed liability but remitted the damages issue for redetermination on proper principles.

The court awarded $20 million for vindication, deterrence, compensation, and pre-judgment interest, to be distributed directly to class members.

For the purposes of individual issues trials, the per capita award is to be deemed compensatory damages.

This decision rejected Canada's submission for a $2.4 million award and the plaintiffs' alternative submission for $20 million solely for vindication and deterrence.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a judgment awarding damages for a respiratory injury allegedly caused by being sprayed with a fire extinguisher.

The appeal raised issues regarding the admission of participant expert evidence, the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for not considering defence expert evidence on causation, and the quantum of non-pecuniary damages.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons insufficient for failing to analyze the appellant's expert evidence on the diagnosis of Reactive Airways Disorder Syndrome (RADS) and for relying on an unqualified expert's incorrect summary of other specialists' views.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.