Dr. Julien Gojer

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and designated a High-Risk Accused.

The Board accepted a joint submission that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered continued detention at the hospital.

Applying the test from Cousineau, the Board assessed whether there was a substantial likelihood the accused would use violence if discharged from the Board's jurisdiction.

Preferring the evidence of the independent psychiatric assessor over the treating psychiatrist, the Board found a substantial likelihood of violence remained due to the accused's ongoing psychotic symptoms, limited insight, and history of non-compliance.

The Board declined to refer the High-Risk Accused designation to the Superior Court for review.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to attend court.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living stably in a supportive residence, complying with long-acting injectable medication, and exhibiting no active psychotic symptoms or management problems.

The attending psychiatrist testified that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and granted the accused an absolute discharge.

Two appellants, Jemaine Phillips and Drai O'Hara-Salmon, appealed their convictions for first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Said Hadbai in a parking lot across from Jack's Bar in London, Ontario on December 27, 2011.

Phillips, who fired the fatal shot, was convicted as the principal offender.

O'Hara-Salmon was convicted as a party to the offence under sections 21(1)(b), 21(1)(c), and 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

Phillips raised multiple grounds of appeal concerning the trial judge's instructions on self-defence, the exclusion of expert psychiatric evidence, the failure to leave provocation with the jury, and various other charging issues.

O'Hara-Salmon raised grounds concerning the adequacy of instructions on party liability, the failure to give a W.(D.) instruction, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's conduct or instructions.