Dr. DeFreitas

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for careless storage of a firearm, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The appellant argued he no longer posed a significant risk to the public and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by unchallenged psychiatric evidence that the appellant minimized his offence, refused to discuss concerning writings, and had an uncertain commitment to medication.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory annual review.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that he remains a significant threat to public safety but has made progress in his treatment for schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the accused continues to pose a significant threat, and ordered his continued detention at the forensic hospital with additional privileges to facilitate his rehabilitation.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a positive reporting year but recently suffered a significant decompensation involving delusions and paranoia directed at his parents.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered continued detention at the forensic service with added privileges for community living (to access housing waitlists) and accompanied passes into the community within a 150-kilometre radius to allow family visits.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated December 21, 2016, which ordered his continued detention in maximum security at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant had previously been detained at Ontario Shores with community privileges.

He advanced two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board misapprehended evidence regarding when he decompensated after being moved to the minimum-security unit; and second, that the Board failed to address the impact of a medication change on his behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and confirming that the Board was aware of and properly considered the medication change in its decision.