Dr. Ellis

The appellant, who was found unfit to stand trial due to an intellectual disability, appealed a Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to the public and in failing to impose the least onerous disposition, specifically a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding on significant threat as reasonable, but agreed the Board erred by failing to consider whether a conditional discharge could ensure public safety.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board to consider a conditional discharge.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for a robbery committed at an ATM, based on a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

On appeal, he sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that his treating psychiatrists had ruled out schizophrenia and that his symptoms were likely caused by a substance-induced psychosis.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding that the NCRMD verdict amounted to a miscarriage of justice since self-induced intoxication cannot support such a verdict.

The appeal was allowed, the NCRMD verdict was set aside, and a conviction for robbery was entered with a sentence of one day's imprisonment, given the seven years the appellant had already spent in custody.

A status review application for Crown Wardship with no access concerning two children (ages 8 and 6) who were apprehended due to parental neglect, substance abuse, and psychological disturbance.

The court found that the children continue to be in need of protection and that Crown Wardship without access is in their best interests.

The children exhibited severe developmental delays, inappropriate sexualized behaviour, and lack of secure attachment to either parent.

Expert evidence from Dr. Ellis established that the parents lack the capacity to meet the children's profound emotional and psychological needs.

The court rejected the father's position that he could parent the children with minimal supervision, finding his credibility suspect and his denial of parenting shortfalls deeply rooted in his character.

The appellant, who had previously been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a mental health facility.

The Review Board had concluded that the appellant posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, largely based on his history of medication non-compliance and marijuana use leading to mental deterioration.

The Court of Appeal found that the Review Board's conclusion was unreasonable, as the attending psychiatrist's opinion was uncertain and the appellant's history did not demonstrate a significant likelihood of physical violence.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The appellant, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder and was found not criminally responsible, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention in a minimum-secure facility.

He argued the Board erred by failing to adequately consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board did err by failing to consider whether the appellant would consent to medication conditions and by failing to properly analyze the mechanisms under the Criminal Code and Mental Health Act for returning him to the hospital if he decompensated.

However, the appeal was dismissed due to fresh evidence showing the appellant had stopped taking his medication, decompensated, and been returned to a medium-secure unit.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that a doctor had doubts about his diagnosis of a major mental illness.

The Court of Appeal found that the doctor did not dispute the diagnosis and believed discharge was inappropriate due to the risk of harm presented by the appellant.

The Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and represented the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of a medical negligence action arising from a surgical procedure and alleged lack of informed consent.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to accept the defence expert evidence that the surgery was not negligently performed, particularly where there was no effective cross-examination on the factual assumptions and no contrary expert evidence.

The court further held that there was evidence supporting disclosure of the material risk of permanent change in sensation, and no evidence that other asserted risks required disclosure.

Applying the modified objective test, the court upheld the finding that the appellant would have proceeded with the surgery in any event.

The applicant, a 70-year-old pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle and sustained orthopaedic injuries.

She sought statutory accident benefits for attendant care and other services provided by her daughter.

The insurer disputed the quantum and causation, arguing the applicant's progressive dementia was not accident-related.

The arbitrator found the dementia was not caused by the accident but awarded attendant care and housekeeping benefits based on the applicant's accident-related orthopaedic impairments, increasing from 7 to 14 hours per week over time, payable at the minimum wage rate.

Claims for a special award were dismissed due to the applicant's misrepresentations regarding her daughter's lost income.