Dr. Helen Ward

The accused was sentenced for intimidating a justice system participant (a provincial prosecutor) under section 423.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused sent threatening emails and made phone calls to the prosecutor and his wife at their home address in the early morning hours after the prosecutor declined to resolve the accused's Highway Traffic Act charges on favorable terms.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with 12 months of house arrest and GPS monitoring, followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the offence was serious and pre-meditated, the accused's untreated schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and related mental health issues materially contributed to the commission of the offence and warranted a reduction from the baseline custodial sentence of 18 months.

Two young offenders were convicted of aggravated assault on two unprovoked victims and various breach offences.

The Crown sought four years custody for each.

The court imposed differentiated sentences of 695 days for Hussein and 669 days for Sahal, accounting for pre-sentence custody, restrictive bail conditions, and pandemic-related hardship.

The court considered Hussein's significant mental health issues and remorse as mitigating factors, while noting Sahal's prior criminal record, lack of remorse, and failure to heed prior judicial warnings.

Both received two years probation with conditions including weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

The accused, charged with the second-degree murder of his son, sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence to support a claim of self-defence analogous to battered spouse syndrome.

The proposed expert opined that the accused's actions fit the idea of a pre-emptive homicide as self-defence.

The court excluded this portion of the expert's opinion, finding it unnecessary, beyond the expert's qualifications, and liable to usurp the jury's function in assessing the accused's state of mind and the reasonableness of his actions under section 34(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, a former RCMP officer, appealed his sentence of 15 years' imprisonment (less 22 months credit for pre-sentence custody) imposed after conviction on multiple counts involving serious abuse of his 11-year-old son, including two counts of aggravated assault, one count of assault with a weapon, one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm, one count of unlawful confinement, one count of failing to provide the necessaries of life, and two counts relating to improper storage of ammunition and a firearm.

The appellant sought a reduction of five to ten years in his term of imprisonment, advancing three grounds of appeal challenging the sentencing range, the weight given to mental health evidence, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the sentence.

The appellant appealed an NCRMD verdict for uttering threats and breaching a probation order.

At trial, the verdict was based on a psychiatric assessment diagnosing the appellant with schizophrenia.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence from new psychiatrists indicating he was misdiagnosed and actually suffered from bipolar disorder, and that his psychosis at the time of the offence was substance-induced.

The court admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding the original diagnosis was incorrect.

The court set aside the NCRMD verdict, entered a conviction, and imposed a sentence of one day, noting the appellant had already spent 28 months in a secure psychiatric facility.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after causing the death of a 61-year-old First Nations man by blunt force trauma during an altercation.

The accused had a prior conviction for manslaughter.

The court considered Gladue factors, psychiatric assessments indicating PTSD and alcohol use disorder, and the aggravating factors of the accused's prior record and failure to seek assistance for the victim.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

D.D. was convicted of eight offences, including aggravated assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and failing to provide necessaries of life, against his 11-year-old son.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust, extreme violence, sexualized nature of abuse, and starvation, and mitigating factors including D.D.'s lack of criminal record and mental health issues (PTSD, depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive and narcissistic personality traits).

The court found D.D.'s mental health explained his behaviour but did not cause it, thus prioritizing denunciation and deterrence over rehabilitation.

A global sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was imposed, with specific apportionments for each offence, and various ancillary orders.

The appellant appealed his 18-month custodial sentence for driving while disqualified.

He had an extensive criminal record but also significant mental health challenges and a history of trauma.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and by concluding, without evidence, that he had breached a prior conditional sentence.

Given the appellant's positive progress on bail, his engagement in treatment, and the hardship incarceration would cause his family, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

Richard Dowdell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The court determined the parole ineligibility period, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the home invasion, and the brutal nature of the attack, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's immediate admissions, guilty plea, remorse, and long-standing mental illness (Bipolar disorder with psychosis).

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and the offender's mental state, ultimately imposing a life sentence with parole ineligibility for 12 years, rejecting the Crown's request for 14 years.

The accused was charged with attempted murder after stabbing a neighbour with a kitchen knife.

The defence raised the mental disorder exemption under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, arguing the accused lacked the capacity to know his actions were wrong due to schizoaffective disorder and active psychosis.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that the accused suffered from chronic mental illness involving hallucinations and delusions, was non‑compliant with medication prior to the offence, and likely experienced auditory hallucinations at the time of the attack.

Applying the analytical framework for NCR determinations, the court accepted that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of rationally appreciating the moral wrongfulness of the act.

The court therefore found the accused not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.