Dr. Eayrs

This appeal concerned the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a psychiatric assessment for an accused, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) for double murder, who had been designated a "high-risk accused." The accused sought the assessment to promote an application to the Superior Court to remove his high-risk designation, arguing his progress meant he no longer qualified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Board's decision.

The Court clarified that the "substantial likelihood" test for reviewing a high-risk designation assesses the accused's inherent risk of violence if not subject to external constraints, not their risk under current supervised conditions.

Given the accused's history and ongoing risk factors, the Board's conclusion that an assessment would not change its determination was reasonable.

The Court also noted the Board's error in applying an "onus" on the accused in inquisitorial proceedings, though found it non-prejudicial.

The offender pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder of his wife, whom he stabbed while she was in bed.

The court considered the offender's history of domestic violence against the victim, his mental health issues, and his guilty plea.

Applying the criteria under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, the court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 15 years.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying her an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued there was no evidence she would stop taking her medication if discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion was reasonable and supported by evidence of the appellant's missed psychiatric appointments, lack of insight, and past omissions to take medication.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his conditional discharge.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to order a Community Treatment Order (CTO) instead.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on psychiatric evidence that the appellant would stop his medication and become a threat if absolutely discharged.

The Court also noted the Board lacked jurisdiction to order a CTO, as only a physician can issue one under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention at a mental health facility.

The hospital had significantly increased restrictions on his liberty after he tested positive for illicit drugs and exhibited deteriorating mental health.

The Board conducted a combined restrictions review and annual review, concluding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and that his ongoing detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal standards and that its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.