Dr. Eid

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

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and opioid use disorder.

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

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board ordered a Detention Order with the privilege of indirectly supervised passes into the community, finding this to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage the risk while supporting reintegration.

The accused, who has severe autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, was charged with aggravated assault after attacking his mother and sister.

He was previously found unfit to stand trial and detained at CAMH.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine his fitness and the appropriate disposition.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to his profound cognitive limitations.

The Board ordered his continued detention on a general forensic unit at CAMH, with graduated passes and the possibility of community living in approved accommodation to facilitate gradual reintegration.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for six counts of sexual assault due to mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition of conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, citing his stability under strict bail conditions and improved insight.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's finding that a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm remained, considering the nature of his illness, past non-compliance, and the recency of his improved insight, despite his recent stability.

The accused, Krishyanth Kugarajah, was sentenced for two counts of sexual assault, forcible entry, assault, threatening death, and forcible confinement against a vulnerable international student.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, repeated assaults, threats of deportation, and the assaults occurring in her home.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and mental health concerns, though the latter were not found to be causally linked to the offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 7 years' incarceration, reduced to 6 years and 10 months after pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included DNA samples, a weapons prohibition, a communication ban with the victim, and Sex Offender Registry inclusion.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering her detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

She argued the ORB erred in finding she posed a significant threat, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's determination of significant threat was reasonable, based on her history of violence, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight into her illness and medication, and the risk of decompensation leading to violent behaviour if medication ceased.

The court also upheld the ORB's refusal of a conditional discharge, noting its inquisitorial function was fulfilled and a detention order was necessary for public safety, as the Mental Health Act would not provide sufficient control in all foreseeable situations.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a warrant of committal, challenged the Board's May 8, 2018 disposition imposing a detention order on a general secure unit and refusing community living privileges.

The appellant did not contest the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to public safety but argued the conditions were not the least onerous and restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable based on the evidence regarding the appellant's mental illness, risk of reoffending, and the evidentiary basis for the alcohol prohibition condition.