Dr. J. Pytyck

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for assaulting police.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, had a stable year and was expected to transition to supervised community living.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his brittle illness and need for supervision.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Order with expanded privileges, including travel within Southern Ontario and indirectly supervised access to the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for firearms and mischief offences.

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, had remained clinically stable, abstained from substances, and engaged in therapeutic programming over the past year.

However, relying on the hospital psychiatrist's evidence and a joint submission from counsel, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his vulnerability to stressors and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with expanded community pass privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other offences.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the current detention order with new privileges allowing the accused to enter the community and travel to the United States for up to seven days.

The accused's counsel agreed with the detention order but sought up to fourteen days for international travel.

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

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the addition of clauses allowing the accused to enter the community and travel internationally for up to seven days, finding this to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and severe cannabis use disorder, requested a transfer to a different hospital and the removal of a cannabis prohibition from his disposition.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as his cannabis use exacerbates his psychotic symptoms and increases his risk of violence.

The Board maintained the detention order and the cannabis prohibition, but granted the accused's request to transfer his care to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The accused sought a conditional discharge, while the Hospital and Attorney General recommended continuing the detention order with a travel pass.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder, limited insight, and a recent violent incident driven by paranoid beliefs.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, concluding that a conditional discharge was premature and that hospital supervision was necessary to manage the accused's risk.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that directed his transfer from Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The ORB's decision was based on the recommendation of the appellant's treating psychiatrist, who believed CAMH's sexual behaviour clinic was necessary to address the appellant's hypersexuality and concerning behaviours.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, as established in R. v. Owen, and found that the ORB's analysis and conclusion were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.