Dr. Joel Watts

The accused admitted to killing the victim but sought a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

Both the Crown and Defence agreed the accused should be found NCR due to schizophrenia.

The court initially found the evidentiary record insufficient and appointed amicus to cross-examine the forensic psychiatrist, specifically regarding the accused's police interview and potential motive.

After hearing supplemental evidence, the court was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the accused was in active psychosis and lacked the capacity to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

The accused was found NCR and the disposition was deferred to the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant appealed a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) verdict entered on February 24, 2017, following a psychiatric assessment that concluded the appellant did not know his actions were wrong due to untreated schizophrenia.

The appeal was based on serious procedural defects at the hearing, including failure to arraign the appellant, failure to take a plea, failure to make elections on four of five charges, failure to read facts into the record, absence of viva voce evidence, and failure to address the appellant or allow him to speak.

The Crown conceded the procedural flaws warranted setting aside the verdict.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCRMD verdict, and ordered a new trial.

Alexander Clarke pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, unlawful confinement, and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence.

This was his eighth robbery conviction, committed while on parole for previous robberies.

The Crown sought a long-term offender designation and a 10-year sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order (LTSO).

Defence counsel agreed to the long-term offender designation but sought a 6.5-8 year sentence and a 3-5 year LTSO.

The court found Clarke to be a long-term offender, applying the "step principle" for repeat offenders, and sentenced him to a total of nine years imprisonment (with 56.25 months credit for presentence custody) and an eight-year LTSO.

The court emphasized the need for specific deterrence and public protection, while also acknowledging the offender's efforts at rehabilitation and expressing hope for his future.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, re-elected trial by judge alone.

The sole issue was whether the accused was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) by virtue of a mental illness under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that the accused suffered from psychosis due to schizophrenia, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his actions, despite knowing the physical nature and quality of the acts.

The court accepted the defence's burden and found the accused NCR.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of bank robbery.

The Crown applied to have him designated a long-term offender.

The offender has a lengthy criminal record, a history of substance abuse, and schizophrenia.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a long-term offender designation, as a sentence of two years or more was appropriate, there was a substantial risk of violent reoffending, and there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.

The court sentenced the offender to 6.5 years imprisonment (with 307 days left to serve after pre-sentence custody credit) and imposed a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had sexual intercourse with his daughter and sexually touched her on multiple occasions over several years prior to October 2017.

The victim became pregnant and underwent an abortion.

DNA testing confirmed the offender was the father.

The Crown sought 8-10 years imprisonment; defence counsel sought 5 years.

The court imposed a 9-year penitentiary sentence, reduced to 8 years and 320 days after crediting 45 days of pre-trial custody.

The offender was prohibited from seeking employment or volunteering with persons under 16, ordered to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years, and ordered to provide a DNA sample.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and refusing an absolute discharge.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2004 for theft of a motor vehicle and assault on police officers.

After 15 years in psychiatric care, the Board considered two incidents—a May 2018 threat to kill a co-resident and an October 2018 assault on a bus passenger—in concluding she remained a significant threat.

The appellant argued the Board improperly relied on unproven allegations based on hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the legal test and appropriately considered hearsay evidence in its inquisitorial proceedings.