Dr. S. Woodside

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

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-refractory schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had recently decompensated due to medication non-compliance, exhibiting agitation and inappropriate sexualized behaviours.

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

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order to ensure adequate supervision and the ability to rapidly readmit the accused if his mental state deteriorates.

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

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, sought a conditional discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the detention order.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to a treatment-refractory psychotic disorder, limited insight, and a high risk of rapid decompensation if non-adherent to medication or if using substances.

The Board concluded that a detention order with supervised housing remains the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's Disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had recently been discharged to community housing and was doing well.

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

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order without change, noting it was the least restrictive and least onerous 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 schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had recently decompensated in the community and required hospitalization.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the attending psychiatrist's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, noting the accused requires supervised housing before any future discharge.

The Crown applied to have the offender, S.S., declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence, following his conviction for sexual interference.

The offender resisted, arguing he should be declared a long-term offender under s. 753.1, with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order.

The court declined to find the offender a dangerous offender, concluding that the Crown failed to prove a "pattern of repetitive behaviour" or "persistent aggressive behaviour" and that the conduct was "intractable" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the court found the offender to be a long-term offender, imposing a 10-year term of imprisonment and a 10-year long-term supervision order, finding a reasonable possibility of eventual risk control in the community.

The accused, a former elementary school teacher and scoutmaster, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of indecent assault against seven young male scouts committed between 1966 and 1979.

The offences involved sexual touching, masturbation, and in one case oral sex, perpetrated during cottage trips and scout activities.

The accused had previously been convicted of similar offences in 1980 and sentenced to three months concurrent custody.

The sentencing hearing addressed systemic delays in the prosecution, the profound and lasting impacts on the victims, the offender's rehabilitation over 35 years without reoffending, and the appropriate balance between denunciation and restraint in sentencing.

The parties disputed whether the grievor posed a safety risk if returned to work, following an independent medical examination by a forensic psychiatrist.

The arbitrator reviewed the medical report, which concluded that the grievor did not present an acute risk in the short term and was unlikely to overtly threaten others or act out physically in the long term, despite potential interpersonal struggles and parasuicidal gestures.

The arbitrator found that the most reasonable interpretation of the report was that there is no safety risk if the grievor is returned to work.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate detention for the accused following guilty pleas to sexual assault causing bodily harm, choking with intent to commit an indictable offence, being masked with intent to commit an indictable offence, and unlawful confinement.

The accused had committed multiple serious sexual assaults against young women in Quebec and Ontario, as well as an attempted sexual assault in Florida.

The court found that the accused met the dangerous offender criteria under s.753 of the Criminal Code and that there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of his risk in the community.

The court rejected the defence position that a long-term offender designation with a definite sentence followed by a long-term supervision order would be adequate, finding that the accused's personality disorder combined with sexual deviance, his lack of genuine insight into his problems, and his ambivalence toward treatment rendered community-based management insufficient to protect public safety.