Dr. Prat

The Hospital requested an early hearing before the Ontario Review Board to modify the privileges of an accused found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a conveyance.

The Hospital recommended adding international travel privileges and removing the driving prohibition from the Disposition.

The Board denied the international travel request, finding more time was needed to assess the accused's stability given his history of cannabis use and bipolar disorder.

However, the Board granted the removal of the driving prohibition, accepting expert evidence that the accused's risk of driving while manic could be managed without the prohibition and that driving was necessary for his employment and childcare responsibilities.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, has a history of suicidal ideation and emotional dysregulation.

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to limited insight, emotional fragility, and risk of relapse.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties and concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with the same terms and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community but struggled with medication adherence, lack of motivation, and ongoing delusions.

The treating psychiatrist and all parties recommended continuing the conditional discharge.

The Board agreed, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and would likely decompensate without the external control and support provided by a conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for second-degree murder.

The Board considered whether the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's ongoing psychotic symptoms, stress management challenges, and lack of stable protective factors demonstrated a continued significant threat.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, sought an absolute discharge.

The hospital and Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge but removing substance prohibition clauses.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience fluctuating delusions, lacks insight, and would likely disengage from treatment if discharged absolutely, the Board found he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continued conditional discharge with the removal of the substance prohibition and Young clauses.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats.

The accused has a lengthy history of crystal methamphetamine use, which consistently leads to a rapid deterioration in his mental health and readmissions to the hospital.

Although the accused had recently been abstinent and his antipsychotic medication was eliminated without a resurgence of psychotic symptoms, the treating psychiatrist and the hospital recommended continuing the detention order due to the high risk of relapse.

The Board agreed, finding that a detention order remains necessary and appropriate to protect public safety and ensure the hospital can rapidly readmit the accused if his condition deteriorates.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, was subject to an annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the existing Detention Disposition, while the accused sought a Conditional Discharge and the removal of a condition prohibiting cannabis use.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to their fragile mental state, recent decline in functioning, and lack of insight regarding cannabis use.

The Board concluded that a Conditional Discharge was inappropriate as the hospital requires the ability to rapidly readmit the accused if their mental state decompensates.

The Detention Disposition was continued on the same terms.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing and a restriction of liberties hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been readmitted to the hospital multiple times due to suicidal ideation and decompensation in the community.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, continued the detention order, and concluded that the restriction of his liberty was warranted.

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

The hospital and the accused jointly recommended a Conditional Discharge, while the Attorney General recommended continuing the Detention Order.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, citing an unexplained incident where the accused received over 800 excess Ativan pills and ongoing financial stressors.

The Board rejected the joint recommendation for a Conditional Discharge and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order.

The Hospital appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to grant Jeffrey Smith an absolute discharge, arguing it was unreasonable given his history of violence, substance abuse, and limited insight into his mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly given the high standard for finding a "significant threat" and the deference owed to the Board's expertise.

Jeffery Smith, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant public safety threat.

The ORB, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, found that despite a treating psychiatrist's opinion, other expert opinions and the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and recent concerning behaviour (stunt driving and dishonesty) indicated a continued significant threat to public safety without ORB oversight.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conditional discharge.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning the Ontario Review Board's disposition restricting the liberty of a person in forensic custody.

The appellant, detained for 35 years following a brutal sexual assault conviction, challenged the Board's finding that he posed a continuing threat to public safety.

The appellant also raised procedural fairness concerns regarding the Board's refusal to issue a summons for surveillance tapes, withholding staff names, and declining to address Charter arguments raised only in submissions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's substantive findings but struck one provision of the order regarding an independent assessment due to lack of notice to the parties.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated November 16, 2017.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2012 for criminal harassment and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The Board found the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety due to his psychotic disorder, active substance use disorder, lack of prosocial behaviour and motivation, and continued use of marijuana despite clinical advice against it.

The Board imposed a conditional discharge with detention order provisions.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding he constituted a significant threat and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by unanimous opinion of the treatment team.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition order that continued the detention of an NCRMD accused with a term permitting community living in approved accommodation.

The appellant challenged both the Board's finding that she remained a significant threat to public safety and the appropriateness of the detention order as opposed to a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but criticized the Board's brevity in addressing key issues, particularly the lack of rigorous analysis regarding the significant threat finding and the failure to explain why detention was necessary and appropriate rather than a conditional discharge.

The court noted that while the Board's decision was not unreasonable on the evidence, it failed to meet standards of transparency and intelligibility in its reasoning.

The appellant appealed two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board following his finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences committed in January 2016.

The Board found the appellant suffered from delusional disorder and posed a significant threat to public safety, ordering his detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge or conditional discharge to return to the community.

Amicus curiae argued the hearings were procedurally unfair and the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the Initial Disposition as moot and upheld the Current Disposition, finding the Board conducted a fair inquisitorial hearing and the detention decision was reasonable and supported by evidence.

An NCR accused appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to be a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention with community living privileges.

The appellant, a 37-year-old with bipolar disorder and a lengthy criminal history, sought an absolute discharge.

The Board's majority relied on evidence that the appellant's marijuana use was potentially linked to hypomanic symptoms and could lead to a full manic episode, during which he might pose a risk of violent behavior.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion unreasonable, noting that despite a substantial risk of substance abuse and reoffending, the appellant had not committed an act of violence since 2004 and the Board's concerns were speculative and insufficiently grounded in evidence to meet the high threshold for "significant threat to public safety."