Dr. Benassi

The offender was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against an intimate partner, a transgender refugee claimant.

The assaults included digital penetration and unwanted touching.

The Crown sought a 22-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence order.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and victim vulnerability against the offender's youth, mental health challenges, and significant rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a 24-month conditional sentence order, finding that incarceration would have severe collateral consequences on the offender's mental health and stability.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused had recently decompensated, absconded from the hospital, and resumed substance use, though he was working to regain lost progress.

The Board accepted the uncontested psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, major mental disorder, and substance use risk.

The Board ordered the continuation of his Detention Order in a General Forensic Unit with existing conditions.

The 77-year-old self-represented offender was found guilty of unlawful confinement after he followed a 14-year-old complainant off a public transit bus and physically held her against her will for approximately 51 seconds until a bystander intervened.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of the victim's youth and the profound psychological impact of the offence against the offender's lack of a criminal record, his pro-social background, and his time spent on bail.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence, including four months of house arrest, followed by two years of probation, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly recommended a Conditional Discharge, agreeing that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, his risk can be managed in the community.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation, noting the accused's medication compliance and positive progress, and granted a Conditional Discharge with a no-contact provision.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for failing to comply with a probation order, sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of non-adherence, and risk of rapid decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order Disposition with an expanded geographic area to allow for cautious community reintegration.

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

The accused suffers from schizophrenia, lacks insight into his illness, and has a history of medication non-compliance requiring a community treatment order.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely decompensate and become violent if he stopped taking his medication.

Concluding that a conditional discharge was insufficient to manage this risk, the Board issued a detention order with privileges up to community living in approved accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault in 1996.

The hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the detention order with an increased reporting frequency due to recent mental health decompensations and an upcoming destabilizing housing transition.

The accused did not attend the hearing but his counsel took no position.

The Board unanimously found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight, history of violence and fire-setting, and reliance on external supervision for medication compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with increased reporting to closely monitor the accused during his transition to new community housing.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for multiple unprovoked assaults committed while experiencing untreated schizophrenia.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the hospital and Crown sought a detention order, which the accused did not oppose.

The Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his history of decompensation and violence when untreated.

The Board ordered the accused detained at the hospital with conditions, accepting expert evidence that the hospital requires the ability to approve his accommodation and intervene early to manage his risk in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and indecent act.

The Board accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, likely permanently, due to schizoaffective disorder and intellectual disability.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, particularly due to ongoing sexually inappropriate behaviour and the risk of decompensation if medication is not supervised.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with discretionary privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, resides in transitional housing and continues to experience significant delusional ideation.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as he lacks insight into his illness and would likely disengage from care and become verbally threatening if discharged.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order to allow the hospital to manage his transition to permanent housing, while removing the urine drug screen requirement and reducing the reporting frequency.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for aggravated assault and weapon possession, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order at a forensic hospital.

He argued the Board made material factual errors and that he should be granted an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the Board made mischaracterizations of the evidence, these errors did not impact the reasonableness of its risk assessment or disposition.

The court concluded that the Board understood the correct factual context when its reasons were read as a whole, and that the detention order remained the least onerous and restrictive disposition consistent with public safety, given the appellant's ongoing substance abuse and lack of insight into his mental illness.

Mr. Ojaghi appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board, arguing it was unreasonable and seeking a conditional discharge.

He also challenged the Board's removal of a travel provision from his previous disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable and necessary for public safety given the applicant's non-compliance with medication.

However, the court found that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by removing the travel provision without notice or inviting submissions, and therefore reinstated that provision.