Dr. Karen DeFreitas

The accused was found not criminally responsible for mischief, criminal harassment, and break and enter.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and polysubstance use disorder, poses a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the accused detained at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences in a secure forensic unit, with conditions including indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused requested a conditional discharge or a transfer to CAMH, while the hospital recommended continued detention in the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his persistent stalking behaviour, lack of insight, and history of medication non-compliance.

The Board ordered continued detention at Ontario Shores, denying the transfer to CAMH, but modified privileges to allow indirectly supervised passes within Ontario.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, had recently eloped from the hospital and relapsed into methamphetamine use.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A Detention Order within the Forensic Program was continued, with added terms requiring the deposit of travel documents and specifying a 150-kilometer radius for accompanied privileges.

The accused, Yorcaef Jesus Rodriguez-Martinez, was charged with multiple offences including sexual assault causing bodily harm, choking with intent to enable or assist sexual assault, unlawfully entering a dwelling, and two counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

The complainant, BH, was unable to testify due to terminal illness, so her police statement and 911 call were admitted by consent.

The defence conceded the Crown had met its burden on all charges.

The court found the identification evidence, including eyewitness accounts, video surveillance, and DNA evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The court entered convictions on all counts.

The accused was charged with six offences arising from a home invasion, robbery, forcible confinement, and kidnapping for ransom.

The accused admitted committing the actus reus of all charges but raised a defence of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The accused claimed he suffered from delusional disorder and believed he was on a mission assigned by Chinese anti-corruption authorities to locate and apprehend corrupt Chinese officials in Canada.

The trial proceeded in two phases: the first addressing the Crown's case and the accused's testimony; the second addressing psychiatric evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, rejecting the NCR defence after finding the accused's account of his motivations was not credible and that he had not proven on a balance of probabilities that his mental disorder deprived him of the capacity to know his actions were wrong according to Canadian societal standards.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for first degree murder.

At his first Ontario Review Board hearing, the board accepted a joint submission for detention in a medium security unit with escorted hospital grounds privileges, but added a condition permitting escorted or accompanied access to the community at the hospital's discretion.

The Crown appealed, arguing the community access condition was unreasonable and that the board breached procedural fairness by adding it without allowing prior submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the condition was supported by expert psychiatric evidence and that the board did not owe the Crown a common law duty of procedural fairness in these circumstances.