Dr. Choptiany

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences due to schizophrenia.

The hospital and Crown argued the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and sought a Detention Order or continuation of the Conditional Discharge, while the accused sought an Absolute Discharge.

The Board found that despite a stable year in the community, the accused's profound lack of insight into his illness and the likelihood of medication non-compliance and rapid decompensation meant he remained a significant threat.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge, removing only the urinalysis condition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, continues to experience paranoia and cognitive deficits.

The hospital recommended continuing the detention order with community living privileges, while removing the abstinence clause.

The Crown and Amicus supported this recommendation.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the detention order with the recommended amendments, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple driving-related offences, including dangerous driving, flight from police, and driving while prohibited, spanning six Informations over two years.

The offender, who has a lengthy criminal record including a prior conviction for impaired driving causing death, repeatedly fled from police, damaged vehicles, and drove while subject to multiple driving prohibitions.

The court applied the totality principle to impose a global sentence of 17 years and 3 months (207 months) of incarceration, reduced by enhanced pre-sentence custody credit to a remaining sentence of 9 months and 7 days, along with a lifetime driving prohibition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for mischief, assault, and uttering threats.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the detention order, while the accused sought an absolute discharge or a community treatment order.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, experiences ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, and would likely stop taking medication if discharged, the Board ordered the accused's continued detention in a Secure Forensic Unit.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The hospital and the Attorney General argued that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and sought a continued conditional discharge.

The accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board found that the accused had been stable in the community for four years, remained abstinent from substances, and was compliant with his medication.

Despite the treating psychiatrist's concerns about the accused's limited insight and risk of relapse, the Board concluded that the threshold for a significant threat to public safety was not met and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of attempted murder.

The Board accepted the hospital's risk assessment that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but that this risk can be managed in the community.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, requiring the accused to reside at his family home and abide by a no-contact order, but declined to impose mandatory urine screens or a consent to treatment clause.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference in 2008 but was found unfit to stand trial prior to sentencing.

In 2021, the Ontario Review Board found him permanently unfit and recommended a stay of proceedings, concluding he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Superior Court held a hearing to determine whether to stay the charges under s. 672.851 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the ORB's recommendation, finding that the accused, despite his age and dementia, remained a significant threat to public safety due to his risk of reoffending sexually against children if he gained access to alcohol.

The court concluded a stay would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for prior offences, appealed a 2019 Ontario Review Board disposition that continued his conditional discharge and imposed new alcohol and drug testing requirements.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its application of the significant threat test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat was not supported by the evidence and lacked proper analysis regarding the degree of risk or gravity of apprehended harm.

The court emphasized that factors such as lack of insight, potential medication non-compliance, or substance abuse do not automatically establish a significant threat without specific analysis of the risk of serious criminal conduct.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted, although the issue was rendered moot by a subsequent 2020 Board decision granting an absolute discharge.

The appellant, who had been found not criminally responsible for violent offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred in rejecting an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given expert evidence that the appellant posed a high risk of violence, lacked insight, and was unwilling to follow conditions.

A detention order was found to be the least restrictive disposition.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several assaults, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge was appropriate and that his risk could be managed in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded a detention order was necessary due to the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, his substance use, and the need for proactive intervention to prevent decompensation.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 6, 2019.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, appealed a conditional discharge disposition that prohibited him from driving and required abstinence from alcohol.

The appellant argued the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his suspended driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable and supported by evidence, but expressed concern about the lack of information available regarding the licence suspension and directed that detailed information be obtained for the next review.

An appeal by an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused against the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his conditional discharge.

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

The appellant had been living unsupervised in the community for over a decade with stable mental health and medication compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on the appellant's lack of insight into his illness, his history of violence when unmedicated, and concerns that the civil mental health system could not adequately manage the risk of treatment non-compliance.

The offender pleaded guilty to an unprovoked assault causing bodily harm against a stranger while on parole for manslaughter.

The Crown sought a sentence of 3 years and a long-term offender designation.

The court sentenced the offender to 3.5 years (reduced to 6 months with enhanced pre-sentence credit) and 3 years of probation.

The court dismissed the long-term offender application, finding that while the offender posed a risk, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a substantial risk of violent reoffending as required by the legislation.