Dr. Le

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for theft and robbery.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and methamphetamine use disorder, had made clinical progress but remained an elopement risk and vulnerable to substance-induced psychosis.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of a Detention Order with added conditions requiring substance abstention and testing, while permitting staff-escorted travel passes to facilitate family connection.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and breach of probation.

The Board considered evidence from the hospital, including psychiatric assessments indicating the accused suffers from schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, and experiences ongoing paranoia and delusions.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot appreciate the charges or meaningfully participate in a trial.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his propensity for unprovoked aggression when unwell.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including criminal harassment and assault.

Relying on the hospital report and uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to intellectual disability and developmental delays.

The Board further concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberties hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had his community privileges restricted after an unauthorized leave of absence during which he consumed cannabis and was found in a psychotic state.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continuation of his detention disposition, concluding that he requires the structured monitoring of the hospital.

The Board also held that the hospital's restriction of his liberties was not significant in the circumstances, but rather a necessary and least restrictive day-to-day management of his risk.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and breaking and entering.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and the accused sought a detention order with privileges including indirectly supervised passes into the community.

The Attorney General opposed the indirectly supervised passes.

The Board ordered a detention order but denied the indirectly supervised community passes, finding them premature given the accused's limited insight into his psychotic symptoms, the high risk of relapse, and the short period of observation at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with probation.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder, substance use disorders, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to cognitive impairment, risk of medication non-compliance, and a history of violence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition at the hospital, with the removal of a clause permitting attendance at an indirectly supervised addictions treatment program, as the accused's cognitive issues rendered him unsuitable for such a program.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and other offences.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of substance abuse and risk of relapse, despite maintaining sobriety for the past year.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention order at the hospital, with a modification to his privileges allowing for indirectly supervised passes of up to 7 days in the community to facilitate his upcoming transition to a supervised group home.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for three counts of sexual assault.

The accused's diagnoses include schizophrenia and multiple substance use disorders.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition with terms and conditions, including a community living provision and a weapons prohibition, finding it necessary and appropriate to manage the threat while meeting the accused's needs.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's Disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault and uttering threats, suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and stimulant use disorder.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience command hallucinations and requires intensive hospital monitoring.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his Detention Order be continued.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his Schizoaffective Disorder, Moderate Intellectual Disability, and history of violence when unmedicated.

The Board renewed his Conditional Discharge Disposition, noting he remains stable on medication and is awaiting an appropriate supervised community placement.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including criminal harassment and assault.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

The Board found that the accused continues to be unfit to stand trial and is likely permanently unfit due to a profound intellectual disability.

The Board declined to recommend a stay of proceedings, finding that the accused poses a significant threat to public safety due to his fixation on children and lack of understanding of consequences.

A detention order was issued with conditions, including prohibitions on consuming intoxicating substances and having contact with children under 16 unless accompanied by an adult.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits for psychological services.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that a prior Tribunal decision had already determined this issue.

The Tribunal found that the MIG issue was res judicata, as it had been fully adjudicated in a previous hearing between the same parties.

Regarding the non-earner benefits, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's medical evidence over the applicant's self-reporting and expert opinions.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

He contended that the trial judge erred by placing too much reliance on the victim's companion, disregarding expert evidence on the victim's blood alcohol level, and unjustifiably discrediting the evidence of the appellant and his companions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was merely inviting the court to re-weigh the evidence, and that the trial judge's treatment of the evidence was perfectly reasonable.