Dr. Y. Naidoo

The accused, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder and an Intellectual Disability, was previously found unfit to stand trial on sexual offences.

The Review Board held a hearing to review his fitness and disposition.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot meaningfully communicate with counsel or make reality-based decisions.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of a Detention Order with modifications to allow for discharge planning and expanded geographic area for community living.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review for an accused found unfit to stand trial on an assault charge.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and experiences command hallucinations, has been detained in a high-secure forensic program and kept in seclusion due to unpredictable physical aggression.

The Board found that the accused remained unfit to stand trial and ordered his continued detention at the hospital as the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Additionally, the Board ordered an independent assessment by a criminologist to provide new perspectives on managing the accused's condition and reducing his seclusion, with an early review hearing to follow.

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

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-refractory schizophrenia, had a history of unprovoked assaults on staff and co-patients and had been in seclusion for an extended period.

The Board accepted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience active psychotic symptoms and poses a chronic risk of harm to others.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention in a high secure hospital setting as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, was subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition allowing community living.

The hospital imposed two restrictions of liberty (readmissions to hospital) due to rule non-adherence, substance use, and a deteriorating mental state.

The Board reviewed the restrictions under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Applying the standard from R. v. M.L.C., the Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence and found both restrictions were necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous interventions to manage the accused's risk of violence and ensure public safety.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberties hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson.

The hospital had readmitted the accused from the community due to decompensation linked to cigarette smoking, which lowered his clozapine levels.

The Board found the readmission was warranted and the least restrictive measure available to manage his risk.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-refractory schizoaffective disorder, history of medication non-compliance, and risk of rapid decompensation.

A Detention Order was maintained.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused suffers from a complex personality disorder and has a history of substance use.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to poor insight, risk of substance-induced psychosis, and ongoing need for monitoring.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order without change to its terms.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had a positive reporting year with no readmissions, full medication adherence, and nearly two years of substance abstinence.

The Board found that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, his risk can be adequately managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions including residency at a supported accommodation and abstinence from intoxicants.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on assault charges.

The accused suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and remains in seclusion due to unpredictable and aggressive behaviour.

Applying the tests from Taylor and Bharwani, the Board accepted uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains unable to meaningfully participate in a trial or instruct counsel.

The Board found the accused unfit to stand trial, but not permanently so, and ordered the continuation of his detention at the high-secure forensic hospital as he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed a Review Board disposition maintaining a conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it failed to adequately consider evidence demonstrating the appellant's ability to manage his condition and did not meet the "significant threat to public safety" standard, which is onerous and requires a real risk of serious criminal harm.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted.

Matthew Gibson, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining conditional discharge.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, contending the risk assessment was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his compliance with medication and treatment, and stable family support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's application of the significant risk test under the Criminal Code.

The court affirmed the Board's holistic consideration of risk factors, including lack of insight into his illness and index offences, and continued cannabis use, which outweighed protective factors, concluding the conditional discharge was necessary to manage the ongoing significant risk to public safety.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The robberies involved the use of an imitation firearm at two pharmacies on the same day.

The assault occurred months later when the defendant, under the influence of cocaine and fentanyl, assaulted his mother, causing her a concussion.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for the robberies (concurrent) and six months imprisonment for the assault (consecutive), for a total of six and one-half years.

The court considered the defendant's prior robbery conviction, his substance abuse issues, his family support, and his guilty plea in determining the appropriate sentence.