Dr. Nagari

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder due to a substance-induced psychotic episode.

The Board considered expert evidence indicating the accused had recently relapsed into substance use, though without psychotic symptoms.

Applying the factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with an added condition permitting attendance at an approved residential treatment program.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory review of his conditional discharge.

The majority of the Board found that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, narcissistic personality traits, and the risk of decompensation under stress.

The Board maintained his conditional discharge but reduced his reporting requirement to not less than once each month.

A dissenting member would have found that he no longer represents a significant threat and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for several driving and assault offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, experienced a recent decline in mental stability and faces significant challenges due to his lack of immigration status in Canada.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order and supported the parties' plan to pursue an international transfer of the accused to India.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision to continue his conditional discharge and deny his Charter application for an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and refusal to grant an absolute discharge were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also found no Charter breach, as the Board’s decision was based on public safety, not resource limitations.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for break and enter, attempted murder, and kidnapping.

The hospital recommended continuing the detention order with additional privileges, including indirect supervision in the community, citing the accused's significant improvement and adherence to treatment for schizophrenia.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but agreed that a continuation of the detention order with the suggested additional privileges was necessary and appropriate.

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, Shafaq Joya, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with privileges, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably determined that a detention order was necessary.

The court emphasized that the Board's decision was based on the brutal nature of the index offence and the need for close monitoring, distinguishing it from cases where expediency alone justified a restrictive disposition.

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.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that renewed his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to the risk of non-compliance with his medication if discharged absolutely without community monitoring.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for stabbing his former girlfriend multiple times with a three-inch blade on November 12, 2018.

The victim, the mother of their child, sustained multiple small cuts requiring stitches.

The sentencing involved complex balancing of psychiatric factors, Gladue factors concerning the accused's Aboriginal heritage, his status as a youthful offender, and the serious nature of the violent domestic offense.

The court imposed an eighteen-month custodial sentence with three years of probation.

The appellant appealed dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated June 23, 2016 and March 7, 2017 regarding her detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences in 2005 and 2006.

She argued that the Board's finding that she poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that she should receive an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she remains a significant threat but found that the Board erred in summarily dismissing her request for a conditional discharge without further inquiry into her current behavioural status and without considering whether her risk could be managed through a conditional discharge with a consensual treatment order.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring her to a secure forensic unit and revoking her community living privileges.

She argued the Board breached natural justice due to alleged conflicts of interest of two panel members and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and that the Board's disposition was reasonable given the significant deterioration in the appellant's mental state and behaviour.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board following a finding that she was not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer.

The Board ordered her detained in a Secure Forensic Unit due to active, untreated persecutory delusions and a significant threat to public safety.

On appeal, the appellant and amicus curiae argued the Board relied on inadmissible hearsay and failed to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board is entitled to consider hearsay evidence such as police occurrence reports, and that the hybrid detention order was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous option given the appellant's refusal of treatment and lack of insight.