Dr. Misha Hartfeil

The defendant, Li Kai Li, was arraigned on charges of attempted murder (x2) and assault.

The defence admitted the acts but sought a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

A forensic psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Li with schizophrenia, exacerbated by cannabis use, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally or legally wrong.

The court accepted the expert's findings, declared Mr. Li not criminally responsible for the offences, and deferred his initial disposition to the Ontario Review Board, ordering him to remain in custody during that process.

The accused, Mark Aninon, pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The court found him not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, for both offences.

The decision was based on an agreed statement of facts establishing the actus reus and expert psychiatric evidence confirming that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing they were wrong.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board for disposition, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration in the NCR regime.

The accused was charged with first degree murder after strangling his grandmother to death.

The accused suffered from schizophrenia and experienced severe delusions, believing his grandmother was part of a broad conspiracy to kill him.

The court accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused's mental illness deprived him of the capacity to know that others would view his conduct as morally wrong.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of making treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic and ancillary side effect medications.

The appellant argued the Board erred in finding that the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the treatment were that his condition would improve, and erred in finding him incapable regarding ancillary medications without specific evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's findings were reasonable and supported by the psychiatric evidence.

The court also confirmed that under section 23 of the Health Care Consent Act, a finding of incapacity for a primary treatment extends to necessary and ancillary treatments, including side effect medications.