Dr. Ajay Prakash

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including arson and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and polysubstance abuse, had relapsed into crystal methamphetamine use and experienced mental decompensation during the review period.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with expanded indirectly supervised passes, but extended the 'abstain' clause to prohibit the non-medicinal use of cannabis and alcohol due to their role in his decompensation.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and resisting arrest.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review her fitness and determine the appropriate disposition.

Based on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to severe intellectual disability and schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with privileges, finding she requires a highly structured 24/7 supervised setting to manage her complex needs and mitigate the high risk of violent reoffending.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for criminal harassment, failure to comply with a release order, and uttering threats.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from bipolar disorder and a substance use disorder, continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, with conditions including a weapons prohibition, abstention from intoxicants, and no-contact provisions regarding the victim and their child.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and history of decompensation linked to cannabis use.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was insufficient to manage the risk and ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including a prohibition on cannabis use and a requirement to report four times per month.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for break and enter a dwelling house and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Review Board for a disposition hearing.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, and continues to experience delusions similar to those that precipitated the index offence.

The Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his lack of insight, history of treatment non-adherence, and risk of environmental violence.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including hospital approval of accommodation, as the least onerous and restrictive disposition necessary to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and an indecent act.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported an absolute discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's risk to public safety was well-managed by his placement in a long-term care facility, a Community Treatment Order, and his declining physical health.

Concluding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for theft, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order with community privileges, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board found that an absolute discharge would pose a significant public safety threat due to likely medication non-compliance and substance abuse leading to decompensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider the appellant's improvements or misapprehended evidence regarding substance use, emphasizing that appellate review is limited to reasonableness and does not involve reweighing evidence.

Fresh evidence regarding recent decompensation reinforced the Board's conclusion.