Dr. J. Gray

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for mischief.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a detention disposition, with the Attorney General additionally requesting a no-contact order regarding the accused's ex-partner due to homicidal ideations.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a detention disposition.

However, the Board declined to impose a no-contact order, finding it unnecessary and noting that it would not impact the accused's homicidal ideations.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assaulting a peace officer.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, sought privileges to consume alcohol.

The treating psychiatrist opposed the request, recommending the accused first engage with an addictions counsellor given his history of substance abuse.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his current conditions remain the same, denying the request for alcohol privileges.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for uttering threats and breach of probation.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to active symptoms of schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including supervised community access, abstention from intoxicants, and a no-contact order regarding his parents.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for weapons and threat offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been residing in a 24-hour supervised community residence and remained compliant with his medication.

The attending forensic psychiatrist testified that the accused's symptoms were in remission and he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the expert opinion, finding that the accused's medication compliance and stable housing mitigated any remaining risk factors.

The Board concluded the accused no longer met the threshold for significant threat and granted an Absolute Discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for assault and referred to the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition.

The accused, who suffers from bipolar affective disorder and a mild intellectual disability, assaulted a nurse while experiencing a manic episode.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a high risk of medication non-compliance and decompensation if discharged without supportive housing and community psychiatric care.

A detention order was imposed.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision in which the trial judge refused to impose a section 161 Criminal Code prohibition order against a respondent convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The respondent had been found guilty of more than twenty acts of sexual intercourse with his step-daughter over a 2.5-year period when she was between six and eight years old.

The trial judge imposed a 6.5-year sentence but declined the prohibition order, citing concerns about personal liberty.

The appellate court found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the respondent's continued risk to children and imposed a tailored section 161 prohibition order for 15 years from release.

L.C. was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, S.B.M., who was between six and eight years old at the time of the offences.

The charge of sexual interference was conditionally stayed based on the Kineapple principle.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age, abuse of trust, repeated acts of intercourse over 2.5 years, prior similar convictions, and the long-standing psychological impact on the child.

Mitigating factors included a positive pre-sentence report, steady employment, and family support.

The court sentenced L.C. to 6.5 years' incarceration for sexual assault, along with a DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, and a communication prohibition with the victim during the custodial period.