Dr. Jonathan Duboff

The accused was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board held a disposition hearing to determine if the accused posed a significant threat to public safety.

The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder, was untreated and refused psychotropic medication.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, particularly regarding psychological harm.

A Detention Order was issued with privileges, including accompanied access to the community, to balance public safety with the accused's reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the accused's fitness to stand trial and her disposition.

The accused, who has schizophrenia, was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault with a weapon.

Despite some clinical improvements, the accused continued to experience active delusions, lacked insight into her mental illness, and adamantly denied having any outstanding charges.

The Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence and found that the accused remained unfit to stand trial as she could not meaningfully instruct counsel.

The Board concluded that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of her Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had previously been found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer.

Based on a joint submission and psychiatric evidence indicating ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia and intellectual disability, the Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order on the same terms.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his detention.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant public threat and in not adequately applying Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal granted fresh evidence motions from both parties but dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court affirmed that the appellant remained a significant threat due to unstable mental health, risk of medication non-compliance, and substance abuse, which could lead to re-offending.

The refusal of a conditional discharge was also deemed reasonable, as no adequate community treatment plan was in place, despite the consideration of Gladue factors.