6 total
Review Board orders detention for NCR accused who killed his mother while experiencing psychotic delusions.
The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder after killing his mother while experiencing psychotic delusions.
The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.
The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizoaffective disorder, history of non-compliance with treatment, and alcohol use.
The Board ordered a Detention Order at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care with gradual privileges and added a non-association condition regarding certain family members.
Case allowed decision
This sentencing judgment concerns A.C., who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference against his niece, K.J., under section 151 of the Criminal Code.
The offences occurred over several years, involving repeated sexual abuse of a minor family member.
The court considered the extensive harm to the victim and family, the offender's background, and relevant sentencing principles emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.
The judge imposed a six-year concurrent sentence on each count, along with ancillary orders including DNA, long-term probation, and a lifetime SOIRA order.
The court dismissed a motion to reopen an appeal, finding the fresh psychiatric evidence insufficient to establish a not criminally responsible defence.
Mr. Stephens, convicted of mischief and failing to comply with a probation order in 2009, sought to reopen his appeal to argue for a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) defence.
He had previously been found NCR for unrelated 2011 offences.
His summary conviction appeal of the 2009 convictions was dismissed in 2014, and subsequent motions to reopen were also dismissed.
He brought a new motion relying on a 2024 psychiatric assessment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the new report lacked the cogency to establish an NCR defence or to justify reopening the appeal, especially given the applicant's own inconsistent factual account of the events.
The appeal of the dangerous offender designation, indeterminate sentence, and NCR defence rejection was dismissed.
The appellant, Richard Jackman, appealed his conviction for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and attempted extortion, as well as his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.
The appeal raised issues regarding the rejection of his not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR) defense, the consideration of treatability at the dangerous offender designation stage, and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the legal tests, reasonably rejected the NCR defense, properly considered treatability in the dangerous offender analysis, and reasonably imposed an indeterminate sentence given the appellant's poor prospects for treatability and risk to the public.
The Court of Appeal set aside an NCRMD verdict due to procedural irregularities and admitted fresh evidence suggesting the accused's actions resulted from intoxication.
The appellant, Cameron Laming, appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for a weapons dangerous charge.
He argued procedural irregularities during the NCRMD hearing and sought to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence suggesting his mental state was due to drug-induced intoxication rather than a mental disorder qualifying for NCRMD.
The Court of Appeal found significant procedural deficiencies, including the appellant not having read the NCRMD report, equivocal consent, and insufficient reasons from the trial judge.
The fresh evidence, which cast doubt on the NCRMD diagnosis, was admitted.
The appeal was allowed, the NCRMD verdict was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.
Offender designated a Dangerous Offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period for harassing and threatening former partner's family.
The offender was convicted of 17 offences, including criminal harassment, uttering death threats, and extortion against his former common-law partner's family.
The Crown applied to have him designated a Dangerous Offender.
The court found that the predicate offences were serious personal injury offences and that the offender's conduct demonstrated a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, showing a failure to restrain himself and a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences.
The court designated the offender a Dangerous Offender and, finding that a lesser sentence would not adequately protect the public due to his high risk of reoffending and poor treatability for Delusional Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder, imposed an indeterminate sentence.