Dr. Jeff McMaster

The appellant, who had a lengthy history of violent offences against intimate partners, was convicted of attempted murder and choking.

The sentencing judge designated him a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judge improperly presumed an indeterminate sentence was required and failed to adequately consider treatment options.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentencing judge engaged in a rigorous, individualized assessment of the evidence and properly concluded that the appellant's risk could not be managed in the community.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter for the unprovoked stabbing death of his stepfather.

The accused suffers from severe schizophrenia and was likely in an acute psychotic state at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought a sentence equivalent to 4 years and 3 months followed by probation.

The court weighed the gravity of the unprovoked attack against the mitigating factor of the accused's major mental illness.

The court sentenced the accused to 6 years' imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 33 months to serve, and recommended placement in a specific facility to ensure ongoing psychiatric treatment.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board refusing an absolute discharge and continuing a conditional discharge.

The Board concluded the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a high likelihood of non-compliance with anti-psychotic medication if discharged absolutely.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the expert opinion of a consulting forensic psychiatrist regarding the appellant's fluctuating insight into his condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown applied to designate the respondent a dangerous offender following his convictions for two separate, unprovoked, and brutal attempted murders of vulnerable women working alone in retail stores.

The court found that the predicate offences were serious personal injury offences and that the respondent's conduct demonstrated a pattern of repetitive, persistent, and aggressive behaviour with a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences.

Psychiatric evidence indicated a moderate to high risk of violent re-offending and a lack of insight into the triggers for his violence.

Concluding that there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court designated the respondent a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee revoking his teaching certificate due to incapacity.

The Committee relied on a provisional psychiatric diagnosis of delusional disorder based on a document review, as the appellant refused to attend a psychiatric assessment or the final days of his hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was admissible and the Committee's decision was reasonable.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the appellant waived his right to complain by choosing not to attend the hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexually assaulting his young son, arguing his guilty pleas should be set aside because a major depressive disorder undermined their voluntariness.

The Court of Appeal held that the 'limited cognitive capacity' standard applies to determine whether a mental disorder affects the voluntariness of a guilty plea.

Applying this standard, the court preferred the Crown's expert evidence and found the appellant understood the process and made a conscious, volitional decision.

The appeal was dismissed.