Dr. Michael Chan

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on charges of uttering threats and failing to comply with probation.

The accused suffers from chronic schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains unable to meaningfully participate in a trial or instruct counsel due to his thought disorder.

The Board also found that the accused poses a significant threat to public safety due to his mental illness, history of non-compliance with treatment, and substance abuse.

A Detention Order was imposed.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for Jeremy Anger, who was previously found not criminally responsible for offences including mischief endangering life.

The Board found that Mr. Anger continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his history of substance-induced psychosis and emotional regulation difficulties.

Adopting the joint position of the parties and the recommendation of his treating psychiatrist, the Board ordered the continuation of his Detention Order at Providence Care Hospital, with amended conditions and ongoing community living privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the accused's unfitness to stand trial on charges of mischief and failing to comply with probation.

The accused, diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia, had received substantial antipsychotic treatment and participated in a pragmatic court education program utilizing visual aids and role-play.

Applying the test from Bharwani, the Board accepted the uncontested psychiatric and psychological evidence that the accused now possessed a reality-based understanding of the court process, the possible consequences of the proceedings, and the ability to communicate with counsel.

The Board found the accused fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court, with his current detention order remaining in effect in the interim.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault, mischief, and theft.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders, had previously been granted an absolute discharge but relapsed after discontinuing medication.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his unstable mental state and resistance to treatment.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order at the Secure Forensic Unit, finding it to be the least restrictive and least onerous disposition necessary to manage his risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar 1 Disorder and a Neuro-Cognitive Disorder, was residing at Providence Care Hospital.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to risks of medication non-compliance and relapse.

The Board ordered the continuation of a Detention Order, amending the conditions to allow placement outside the Secure Forensic Unit within the hospital, as no appropriate community accommodation was available.

Kirsten Pemberton pleaded guilty to infanticide and concealing the dead body of her child.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, particularly in light of the diminished moral blameworthiness recognized for infanticide due to a disturbed mind.

The court also addressed credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

A conditional sentence of one year for infanticide and six months concurrently for concealment was imposed, followed by two years of probation and a 20-year common law peace bond requiring notification of future pregnancies and medical care.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that detained an NCR accused who had been under the Board's jurisdiction for over a decade following a finding of not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Board determined the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety despite fresh evidence from a clinical forensic psychologist indicating low risk on stalking-specific assessment tools.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that the evidence fell short of establishing a significant threat to public safety and that the Board had effectively reversed the burden of proof by relying solely on a moderate-risk HCR-20 V3 assessment without proper expert contextualization.

The offender, who suffers from severe schizo-affective disorder, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after stabbing a fellow rooming house tenant.

The court weighed the principles of general deterrence and public protection against the offender's mental illness and need for rehabilitation.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, less 4 years' credit for pre-trial custody, with a strong recommendation for treatment at a Regional Treatment Centre.

The offender, suffering from schizo-affective disorder and psychotic delusions, fatally stabbed a fellow resident in a rooming house.

Following an unsuccessful NCR defence, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years imprisonment, less 4 years credit for pre-trial custody, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and public protection through psychiatric treatment within the federal penitentiary system.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a 1978 murder.

After years of gradual release, he resumed substance abuse and the Review Board ordered his continued detention at a psychiatric hospital, finding him a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal set aside the Board's order as unreasonable and directed an absolute discharge, while refusing to admit fresh evidence of recent violent behaviour.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given its expertise and the evidence of the respondent's resumed cocaine use.

The Court also held that the fresh evidence should have been admitted in the interests of justice.