Dr. Mishra

The appellant, Mark Roberts, sought a suspension of an Ontario Review Board order directing his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health due to his difficult and harassing behaviour towards female staff at CAMH.

The court applied the specific, higher test under s. 672.76 of the Criminal Code for suspending Board dispositions, which requires compelling reasons to doubt the Board's decision's validity or soundness based on the accused's mental condition, and exceptional circumstances.

The court found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the transfer's impact on his mental condition to justify a suspension, especially considering the severe adverse impact of his conduct on CAMH's operations and staff safety.

The motion for suspension was dismissed.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, applied for a second court-ordered psychiatric assessment under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code to support a defence of not criminally responsible.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a second assessment was not necessary because a comprehensive assessment had already been conducted by a forensic psychiatrist, and there was no evidence of new information that would shed further light on the accused's mental state at the time of the offence.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery of convenience stores and two counts of failing to comply with probation.

The offender, who suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders, committed the robberies while armed with a knife or a snow shovel.

The court found that the offender's mental illness did not mitigate his moral culpability as there was no causal link to the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months' imprisonment, reduced to 5 months after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and institutional lockdowns.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2018.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge from a detention order, arguing that the proposed conditional discharge terms would provide equivalent public protection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but allowed it in part, finding that while the Board's refusal to order a conditional discharge was reasonable and supported by evidence, the Board had erred by failing to remove the 24-hour supervision requirement from the disposition.

The court amended the disposition to remove this phrase, allowing the appellant to continue his transition to less supervised community living.