Dr. Karen De Freitas

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempt murder and designated as a high risk accused.

The Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to residual schizophrenia symptoms and cannabis use disorder.

However, noting his clinical progress, the Board ordered continued detention at Ontario Shores but granted indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, finding that s. 672.64(3) of the Criminal Code does not preclude such privileges for a high risk accused.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempt murder and designated a high risk accused, appeared for an annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and Crown jointly submitted that the current disposition be maintained, with an added 200-metre perimeter restriction from the parents' home and workplace.

The accused's counsel agreed but requested the Board refer the high risk accused designation to the Superior Court for review.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia and lack of full insight.

The Board declined to refer the high risk accused designation for review, concluding there was not a substantial likelihood that the accused would not use violence endangering others.

The accused was charged with mischief endangering life after lighting a fire at a gas station, causing injury to himself and endangering others.

The Crown conceded that the accused was incapable of appreciating that his actions were wrong due to cannabis-induced psychosis, but argued that cannabis-induced psychosis does not constitute a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused suffered from an underlying propensity to psychosis triggered by prolonged cannabis use, distinguishing his case from simple drug intoxication.

Applying the internal cause and continuing danger factors from R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, the court found the accused not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant was convicted of child abduction contrary to section 282 of the Criminal Code after taking her seven-year-old daughter to China in December 2010 without the knowledge or consent of the child's father and refusing to disclose the child's whereabouts upon return to Canada.

The trial judge imposed a seven-year sentence.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, raising 14 grounds of appeal including allegations of illegality, perjury, and judicial misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial was conducted fairly and the evidence overwhelmingly established guilt.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part regarding pre-sentence custody credit, which was recalculated at a 1.5:1 ratio rather than 1:1, resulting in a reduction of the sentence by 14 months.

The accused, C.M.L., was convicted of child abduction and the Crown sought a fitness assessment for sentencing.

Two psychiatrists opined she was unfit due to delusional disorder affecting her ability to communicate with counsel or represent herself.

The court, applying the "limited cognitive capacity" test from R. v. Taylor and R. v. Whittle, found that C.M.L. understood the proceedings and their consequences, and was capable of communicating with counsel but chose not to.

Her disruptive behaviour and refusal to cooperate were deemed deliberate strategies rather than indicators of unfitness.

The court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to find her unfit for sentencing and proceeded with the sentencing hearing.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his guilty plea to sexual assault.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record, including three prior sexual assaults, and was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and severe substance abuse issues.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to his pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour and failure to control his sexual impulses.

However, the court concluded that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public, imposing a determinate sentence of five years followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order.