Dr. M. Choptiany

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found unfit to stand trial on a charge of manslaughter.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and vascular dementia secondary to a traumatic brain injury.

Based on uncontradicted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, is likely permanently unfit, and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

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

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of violence and primary psychotic illness.

However, noting his successful treatment year and remission of psychotic symptoms, the Board ordered a Detention Order to the Forensic Service with expanded privileges, including community living in supervised accommodation, to facilitate cautious reintegration and assist with housing waitlists.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community for nearly three years without readmission, remaining compliant with his injectable antipsychotic medication.

While all parties agreed he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, the hospital and Crown sought a continuation of his Detention Order to ensure rapid readmission if he decompensated.

The Board disagreed, finding that his sustained stability and the availability of the Mental Health Act for involuntary admission meant his risk could be adequately managed under a less restrictive Conditional Discharge.

Jason Hadfield was found guilty of robbery and manslaughter.

The Crown applied to have him found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder and designated as a high-risk accused (HRA).

Both parties agreed on the NCR finding due to schizophrenia.

The court then considered the HRA designation, which the defence resisted.

The court reviewed the nature of the offences, the accused's repetitive violent behaviour, current mental condition, past treatment, and expert opinions.

The court found a substantial likelihood that the accused, if unrestrained and untreated, would use violence endangering others.

Consequently, the accused was designated a high-risk accused, requiring detention in a hospital with strict conditions on absence.