Dr. Harrigan

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for serious driving offences resulting in death, suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

The Board accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused lacks insight, requires supervision for medication adherence, and would pose a significant risk of serious harm if granted an absolute discharge.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review and a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for firearms and assault offences.

The hospital had transferred the accused to a secure forensic unit due to substance use, rule violations, and medication non-compliance.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary to manage the accused's risk.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to predictable medication non-adherence, heavy cannabis use, and rapid psychotic relapse.

The Board ordered the accused's continued detention at the hospital, with provisions for an updated Gladue Report and potential attendance at an Indigenous residential treatment centre.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with conditions.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, sought the removal of disposition clauses restricting his internet and cannabis use.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused's cannabis use leads to aggression and decompensation, and that internet restrictions are necessary to manage his risk.

The Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention within the Forensic Service at Ontario Shores.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing two family members while experiencing persecutory delusions.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered expert psychiatric evidence indicating the accused's ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, impulsivity, and sexually disinhibited behaviour.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

A Detention Order at the hospital was issued, as community living was deemed premature while his medication regimen is being optimized.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and arson.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder and history of severe violence when acutely unwell.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with graduated privileges at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, adopting the joint recommendation of the parties.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for weapons and breach offences.

The hospital and Crown recommended continued detention in a Secure Forensic Unit and the removal of community living privileges, citing the accused's impulsivity, aggression, and need for medication stability.

The Board ordered the accused's continued detention in the Secure Forensic Unit, granting the hospital discretion to transfer him to a General Forensic Unit when clinically appropriate, and removed the community living privilege as unrealistic for the coming year.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer and failing to comply with probation.

The accused sought to have community living privileges added to his detention order.

The hospital and the Attorney General opposed the request, citing a recent unprovoked assault on a co-patient and the accused's ongoing persecutory delusions.

The Board accepted the expert psychiatric evidence that adding community living privileges prematurely would harm the therapeutic relationship.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention at the secure forensic unit without community living privileges.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, was subject to a conditional discharge.

Following the removal of an abstinence clause, he resumed consuming large amounts of cannabis and alcohol, leading to decompensation, paranoid delusions, and sexually inappropriate behaviour.

He voluntarily returned to the hospital.

The hospital and Crown sought a detention order with an abstinence clause, while the accused sought to maintain the conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a conditional discharge is insufficient to manage his risk.

The Board ordered a detention order with conditions including absolute abstinence from alcohol and cannabis.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty and disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences.

While AWOL from the hospital, the accused relapsed into substance use and sent sexually violent and threatening emails to his treating psychiatrist.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered his transfer to St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton, with strict conditions restricting his access to internet-enabled devices.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2003, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued his detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the Board failed to apply the "significant threat" test and consider all relevant factors for a necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the "significant threat" test and reasonably concluded that a detention order was required given the appellant's ongoing mental illness, lack of insight, and risk of aggression, despite some progress.

The defendant was convicted of sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code for sexually abusing his young stepdaughter over a three-year period beginning when she was 10 years old.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended a sentence of 5 years imprisonment.

The court considered whether this joint recommendation constituted a "joint submission" entitled to deference under R. v. Anthony-Cook, and whether a delayed parole eligibility order under section 743.6 should be imposed in light of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Friesen emphasizing deterrence and denunciation in child sexual abuse cases.

The court found the joint recommendation was not a true joint submission because the defendant maintained a not guilty plea and attempted to advance a fraudulent mental health defence.

The court imposed 4 years and 8 months imprisonment (5 years less 4 months pre-sentence custody credit) with delayed parole eligibility until half the sentence was served, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year section 161 prohibition order and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant threat to public safety, applied the wrong legal test, and acted unfairly by copying portions of its reasons from a previous year's hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence of the appellant's treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight, and recent aggressive behaviour supported the significant threat finding.

While the Board's copying of previous reasons was ill-advised, the reasons as a whole demonstrated a firm grasp of the current evidence and did not warrant a new hearing.