Dr. Mamak

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and forcible confinement against his mother, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The hospital recommended an absolute discharge, noting three years of symptom-free stability, abstinence from cannabis, and strong family support.

The Crown opposed, citing diagnostic uncertainty and the severity of the index offences.

Applying the threshold from Winko, the Board concluded the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, who has a long history of untreated schizophrenia and homelessness, sought an absolute discharge.

The hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the detention order.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, as she would likely decompensate and become violent if discharged without stable housing and psychiatric support.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Order with unchanged terms as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for several offences including carrying a concealed weapon and criminal harassment.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the detention order with the addition of 7-day passes.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, substance abuse, and escalating sexually inappropriate behaviour towards female staff.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the recommended modifications.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at a forensic psychiatry program, arguing for a conditional discharge.

The ORB had vacated his previous conditional discharge due to concerning behaviours and a deteriorated mental state, supported by psychiatric and risk assessment evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, noting that a detention order was necessary to allow the Hospital to approve accommodation, consistent with the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

A lawyer with over 30 years of practice pleaded guilty to bigamy and forgery.

The accused created a forged divorce order to deceive his paralegal into believing he was divorced, then married her while still legally married to his wife of 30 years.

He also forged a certificate of divorce to obtain a marriage licence.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence with progressive restrictions, community service, and mandatory reporting, balancing the aggravating factors of document forgery and breach of professional trust against mitigating factors including his lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and genuine remorse.

The appellant mother appealed a custody and access order that granted the respondent father generous access to their children, arguing that the father had attempted to kill her during a vacation in Jamaica.

The trial judge had found the mother's allegations not credible, relying heavily on hearsay evidence from a blood expert who testified at the father's Jamaican criminal trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay evidence without threshold reliability, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias through uneven scrutiny of the evidence, and failed to properly assess the best interests of the children, particularly regarding domestic violence.

A new hearing on custody and access was ordered.

The accused appealed his convictions for violent offences against a former friend, while the Crown appealed the refusal to designate him a dangerous offender.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal, holding that the trial judge made no reviewable errors in applying the credibility framework, assessing the forensic evidence, or giving reasons.

On the sentence appeal, the court held that the trial judge erred in law by importing intractability into s. 753(1), by treating spontaneity and absence of 'serial' offending as defeating pattern, and by misapprehending the availability of long-term offender style community control for a non-sexual violent offender.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and the disposition was varied to five years' imprisonment followed by a ten-year supervision order.