Dr. Jean-Guy Gagnon

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including harassing communications and mischief, stemming from hundreds of unwarranted calls to emergency services.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

Based on psychiatric evidence that the accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and intellectual disability, and continues to experience delusions and exhibit aggressive behaviour, the Board concluded she remains unfit to stand trial.

A detention order was issued to keep the public safe while managing her mental condition, with provisions for controlled community access if her condition improves.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder, had transitioned to a supervised community group home and remained compliant with medication, though he lacked insight into his condition.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his persistent delusional beliefs and the risk of decompensation if he resumed cannabis use or stopped medication.

The Board renewed the detention order with a modification to allow approved travel passes.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, was currently detained at a hospital with community privileges.

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused remained hypomanic and required further stabilization before transitioning to community living.

The Board found that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her major mental illness, history of unreliable treatment adherence, and risk of relapse.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention disposition with an amendment to her community reporting conditions.

The appellants, two young persons charged with manslaughter and robbery, appealed orders transferring their proceedings to ordinary court.

The youth court had concluded that the first appellant could not be rehabilitated within the three-year maximum youth disposition, and that while the second appellant could be rehabilitated, the gravity of the offence required transfer.

The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals, finding that the youth court placed undue emphasis on speculative psychological evidence for the first appellant and misapplied the statutory test for the second appellant by relying on general deterrence.

The Court ordered both youths to be tried in youth court.