Dr. Anthony Adiele

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for breach of probation and causing a disturbance, was subject to an annual Review Board hearing.

The accused has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a history of substance use and violence toward his mother.

The attending psychiatrist testified that the accused continues to experience breakthrough symptoms and lacks insight into his illness and substance use risks.

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

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition.

The appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for charges of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, resisting a peace officer, and breach of probation.

The appeal was based on the entry of an invalid plea of 'not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder' and the trial judge's failure to provide adequate reasons for the NCRMD finding under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the errors.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, quashed the NCR verdict, and ordered a new trial, noting the serious miscarriage of justice that resulted in the appellant's deprivation of liberty for nearly six years.

The charges were subsequently withdrawn upon the appellant entering into a peace bond.

The accused appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing after being found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused suffers from an untreated delusional disorder, lacks insight into his illness, and exhibits paranoid and persecutory beliefs.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his high risk of violence and lack of protective factors.

A detention order was issued, requiring the accused to remain detained at the hospital with conditions including a communication prohibition and a radius restriction regarding the victims.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his mental illnesses, substance use history, and psychopathic traits.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order but expanded the accused's community privileges and geographic travel radius to facilitate his gradual reintegration into supervised community housing.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused's attending psychiatrist testified that the accused had stabilized, secured full-time employment, and moved into supportive housing, recommending a conditional discharge.

The Crown opposed the conditional discharge due to partial insight and risk factors.

The Board found that the accused had made commendable progress over the past year and granted a conditional discharge with conditions, including a specified address to consolidate recent gains.

The court sentenced J.P. Dominic Mignac for aggravated assault and resisting arrest following a stabbing incident at a Burger King.

The court found the case fell within the mid-range of sentencing for aggravated assault, considering factors such as provocation, lack of criminal record, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.

The sentence imposed was two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by three years' probation, and included ancillary orders such as a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The decision reviews the applicable sentencing principles and case law, emphasizing the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The appellant, Cameron Laming, appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for a weapons dangerous charge.

He argued procedural irregularities during the NCRMD hearing and sought to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence suggesting his mental state was due to drug-induced intoxication rather than a mental disorder qualifying for NCRMD.

The Court of Appeal found significant procedural deficiencies, including the appellant not having read the NCRMD report, equivocal consent, and insufficient reasons from the trial judge.

The fresh evidence, which cast doubt on the NCRMD diagnosis, was admitted.

The appeal was allowed, the NCRMD verdict was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

A bail application by a young person charged with possession of a firearm while prohibited under section 51 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and three counts of breach of a youth sentence imposed two days prior.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary ground, arguing substantial likelihood of committing a serious offence (drug trafficking).

The court found the Crown's case on the firearm charge weak, lacking direct evidence and relying on a poor-quality photograph.

The court rejected detention, finding it would improperly substitute for child protection and mental health measures, contrary to the YCJA's preference for release and its rehabilitative principles.