Dr. Claire Harrigan

The 83-year-old accused was charged in 2022 with a historical murder from 1975.

A fitness hearing was held to determine if his cognitive decline rendered him unfit to stand trial.

While early assessments suggested potential malingering, subsequent psychiatric evaluations confirmed a diagnosis of Moderate Neurocognitive Disorder (dementia).

The court accepted the joint submission of the Crown and defence, finding that the accused's dementia severely compromised his ability to sustain attention, follow proceedings, and instruct counsel.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial and ordered transferred to a psychiatric hospital.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on charges of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and identity fraud.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine the appropriate disposition.

The hospital and Crown argued the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and rapid decompensation, seeking a conditional discharge.

The accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence, finding the accused posed a significant threat to public safety, and ordered a conditional discharge with terms proposed by the hospital, excluding a no-contact order.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, remained guarded and treatment-resistant, with a history of violence when acutely unwell.

Accepting the joint submission of the parties and the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A Detention Order within the secure forensic program was maintained to allow for medication optimization and gradual transition to a general unit.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted robbery and breach of probation, suffers from schizophrenia and continues to experience residual psychotic symptoms.

Based on a joint submission and uncontroverted psychiatric evidence of recent physical and verbal aggression, the Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Disposition within the forensic program.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for offences including criminal negligence causing death, suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience symptoms, lacks insight, and poses a moderate risk of violent reoffending.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention within the forensic program.

The Ontario Review Board held a disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible (NCR) on charges of dangerous operation of a conveyance and failing to stop for police.

The accused has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and a history of medication noncompliance and aggression.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the joint submission of the parties, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention disposition to ensure the accused receives necessary psychiatric and medical care in a secure environment.

The accused, Rodney Nichols, charged with murder, sought a further extension of his fitness assessment beyond the statutory 60-day limit under the Criminal Code.

The defence argued for a liberal interpretation of the provisions to ensure a full answer and defence, citing the complexity of the psychiatric issues and the need for specialized testing.

The Crown did not oppose the request.

The court, adopting the reasoning from R. v. Reimer, held that it had jurisdiction to grant a new assessment order even after the 60-day period, interpreting the statutory time limits as directory rather than mandatory to prevent injustice and achieve the objectives of the mental disorder scheme.

The court granted a new 30-day fitness assessment order.