Dr. F. Wood

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment.

The accused had previously been found NCR for similar offences against the same victim and was subject to a Detention Order.

While on a conditional release, he breached non-communication orders and traveled to the victim's city, leading to the new charges.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing erotomanic delusions, marginal insight, and active cannabis use.

The Board ordered a Detention Order mirroring his previous disposition.

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

The accused had been found not criminally responsible for assault.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the hospital's most responsible physician, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, a history of substance use, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge without adding the travel restrictions proposed by the hospital and the Crown, finding them unnecessary given the accused's compliance and therapeutic alliance.

The accused appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing after being found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused suffers from an untreated delusional disorder, lacks insight into his illness, and exhibits paranoid and persecutory beliefs.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his high risk of violence and lack of protective factors.

A detention order was issued, requiring the accused to remain detained at the hospital with conditions including a communication prohibition and a radius restriction regarding the victims.

The moving party father brought a motion for interim primary residential care of the parties' three children, alleging that the responding party mother had alienated the children from him following a child protection intervention.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer opposed the motion, arguing that the children wished to remain with the mother and that a forced separation could be traumatic.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the facts regarding the family's history and the allegations of alienation were highly contested and could not be resolved on a written record alone.

The court maintained the status quo of the mother having interim sole custody, ordered reunification counselling, and expedited the matter for trial.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the two children were in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The mother consented to statutory findings but opposed the protection and disposition orders.

The court granted summary judgment on the protection issue, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's paranoid personality disorder, frequent moves, and use of physical discipline.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the final disposition, as the mother had recently made significant efforts to improve her parenting and engage in counselling.