Dr. Kung

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges and detained at CAMH.

At the initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital, the Attorney General, and amicus curiae all agreed that the accused was presently fit to stand trial.

Relying on the evidence of the treating physician, the Board found the accused fit to stand trial and directed that she be returned to court for a fitness hearing, without making a Keep Fit Order.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and previously found unfit to stand trial.

At her initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the Board considered whether she had become fit.

Relying on the evidence of her treating psychiatrist and the accused's own testimony, the Board found she remained actively psychotic with complex delusions, including the belief that she is a 'Crown Empress' immune from prosecution.

Applying the Supreme Court's test in Bharwani, the Board concluded her delusions prevented a reality-based understanding of the proceedings.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial and a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health was issued to manage her risk and provide ongoing treatment.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, sought to reduce his reporting requirements.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to fluctuating symptoms, limited insight, and a history of rapid decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge, including the requirement to report to the hospital at least once per week, to ensure public safety and meet the accused's mental health needs.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault with a weapon and was detained pending an initial disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

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

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's limited insight into his schizophrenia, ongoing psychotic symptoms, and high risk of substance relapse rendered him a significant threat.

The Board ordered a Detention Order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with conditions including abstinence from non-prescribed substances and a weapons prohibition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine whether the accused, who had previously been found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault, remained unfit.

Based on the hospital report and the testimony of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused's psychotic symptoms had stabilized with medication and that he was able to understand the nature and object of court proceedings.

The Board concluded that the accused is currently fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court for a fitness hearing.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on multiple counts of assault and threatening.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the panel reviewed psychiatric reports indicating the accused suffers from schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, lacks insight, and experiences grandiose and paranoid delusions.

The panel found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention order was issued with discretionary privileges, including accompanied passes on hospital grounds and escorted passes in the community.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge allowing him to return to his independent apartment was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was entitled to deference and reasonably concluded that the appellant required close 24-hour supervision due to his history of decompensation, violent behaviour, and substance abuse.

The appellant sought out-of-country funding for surgery to repair a medical condition, arguing that a delay in Ontario would cause irreversible tissue damage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board denied the request, and the appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The appellant argued the Board lost jurisdiction by reconstituting the hearing panel and ignored medical evidence regarding tissue damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the panel reconstitution and concluding the Board's decision on the medical evidence was reasonable.