Dr. Hartfeil

The accused was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder after stabbing her husband while experiencing command hallucinations.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a detention order with accompanied passes, accepting the hospital's evidence that a secure environment is necessary to manage her progressive dementia and assess her needs before any potential discharge to the community.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine whether the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for firearms offences, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and severe cannabis use disorder.

Applying Gladue principles, the Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and found that the accused remains a significant threat.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at the hospital, with privileges up to and including residing in supervised accommodation in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assault.

The accused sought the removal of alcohol and cannabis prohibitions from his disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that substance use would likely cause a relapse of psychotic symptoms and violent behaviour, the Board ordered continued detention on a General Forensic Unit with the alcohol and cannabis prohibitions maintained.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

He argued the Board's finding of significant public safety risk was unreasonable, citing his non-violent history and good behaviour.

Amicus curiae argued the Board failed to fully exercise its inquisitorial powers regarding the appellant's reintegration and treatment.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's risk assessment reasonable, supported by the treatment team's assessment of potential harm without supervision.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the Board's inquisitorial powers, noting the appellant's improved situation and the Board's continued attentiveness to treatment and community supports.

The appeal was dismissed.