Dr. Padraig Darby

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the conditional discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing he had been stable in the community for years without violence.

The hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the conditional discharge, presenting psychiatric evidence that the accused's stability relied entirely on externally mandated medication, without which his severe persecutory delusions would return and escalate his risk of violence.

The Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and carrying a concealed weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had been residing in the community under a detention order.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his guardedness, lack of insight into his medication, and recent incidents of verbal aggression.

The Board maintained the existing detention order with privileges to reside in approved accommodation.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition review.

The accused has schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, and continues to use cannabis despite a mandatory abstention clause.

The Board accepted the joint position that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered continued detention at the General Forensic Service at CAMH with privileges up to community living in approved accommodation.

The Board amended the reporting requirement to not less than every two weeks, but maintained the absolute abstention clause for non-medical drugs and alcohol.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with a persecutory delusional disorder, had been living in the community at a highly supported housing accommodation under a conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as his delusions would likely intensify if he ceased medication.

The Board ordered that the conditional discharge be maintained as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, with a modification that his housing need not be strictly stipulated as the current high-support facility.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible, brought an application for a writ of habeas corpus with mandamus in aid to review his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and order his immediate transfer to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The Ontario Review Board had ordered his transfer to CAMH 'forthwith', but he had been waiting seven months due to a shortage of secure forensic beds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not established a deprivation of liberty caused specifically by the delay, and that the ORB order provided lawful authority for his continued interim detention at Waypoint until a bed became available at CAMH.

The Ontario Review Board granted the respondent an absolute discharge.

The hospital appealed, relying entirely on fresh evidence of the respondent's conduct following his release, which included resuming marijuana use, engaging in threatening behaviour, and facing new criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it overwhelmingly demonstrated that the respondent remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing before the Board was ordered.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At his annual review hearing, all parties presented a joint submission to continue his previous disposition, which included unaccompanied privileges.

The Board rejected the joint submission and imposed a more restrictive disposition without giving the parties notice of its intention to do so.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to give the appellant notice that it was inclined to reject the joint submission and an opportunity to lead further evidence or make additional submissions.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other charges.

The Ontario Review Board granted him an absolute discharge, finding he no longer posed a significant risk to public safety.

The hospital appealed, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that the respondent had rapidly decompensated, resumed substance abuse, and become aggressive shortly after his discharge.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could reasonably have affected the board's decision as it undermined the factual foundation of the absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the board for a rehearing.

The appellant hospital appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board granting an absolute discharge to an individual found not criminally responsible for first degree murder.

The Board had previously adjourned the hearing to obtain an independent psychiatric assessment regarding the individual's past criminal involvement.

Despite the assessment failing to resolve these concerns, the Board's majority granted the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable due to an unexplained gap in its reasoning regarding the relevance of the past criminal conduct and its failure to address inadequacies in the proposed treatment plan for monitoring medication compliance.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and detained for 24 years, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing to grant him an absolute discharge under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal held that the ORB is not a court of competent jurisdiction to grant an absolute discharge as a Charter remedy because it lacks the structural competence and remedial jurisdiction.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the ORB's failure to impose conditions in its disposition to address the appellant's treatment impasse was unreasonable, and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The appellant hospital appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition transferring the respondent, who was found not criminally responsible for multiple murders and sexual offences, from a maximum security facility to a medium security facility.

The Review Board concluded that the respondent's risk could be managed in medium security.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Review Board erred in law by focusing solely on risk management and failing to holistically apply all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Board failed to consider evidence that the restrictive conditions and lack of vocational therapy at the medium security facility would be detrimental to the respondent's mental health and increase his risk to the public.