Dr. Pallandi

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

The accused had been discharged to a community residence but was returned to the hospital after exhibiting bizarre behaviour and testing positive for cannabis.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the Detention Order, while the accused requested a Conditional Discharge and the removal of alcohol prohibitions.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence, finding that the restriction of liberty was warranted and that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Detention Order was continued with all previous prohibitions, including the ban on alcohol use.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, had been living in the community for nine months without incident.

The hospital, the accused, and initially the Attorney General jointly recommended a Conditional Discharge.

However, the Board rejected this recommendation, finding that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his high psychopathy scores, lack of insight, and failure to engage in necessary therapy.

The Board concluded that the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to manage his risk if his mental state decompensated.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with an additional privilege for indirectly supervised travel passes.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had recently been non-compliant with his medication, requiring two hospital admissions to stabilize his mental state.

He demonstrated poor insight into his illness and the index offences, believing his condition could be treated with yoga and non-pharmacological means.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continuation of his Detention Disposition at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a Restriction of Liberty hearing after the accused, who had been living in the community, was readmitted to the hospital due to severe sleep disruption and increased paranoid beliefs.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported the readmission as the least onerous and least restrictive decision.

The accused's counsel did not contest the initial readmission but raised concerns about the level of passes granted.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the return to hospital was warranted and that the ongoing inpatient stay remained the least onerous and least restrictive decision available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community and was compliant with his medication.

The majority of the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered a conditional discharge, noting that he is early in his forensic care and needs to be tested in the community.

A dissenting minority would have granted an absolute discharge, finding no evidence of a significant threat.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the conditional discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, the removal of alcohol and cannabis prohibitions from his conditions.

The hospital and Attorney General argued the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found that the accused's schizophrenia, lack of insight, and substance use disorders made him a significant threat, noting recent behavioral deterioration and attempts to evade substance detection.

The majority maintained the conditional discharge with strict prohibitions on alcohol and cannabis, while a minority dissented regarding the alcohol prohibition.

The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a home invasion at a university residence and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in jury selection, misdirected the jury on reasonable doubt, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended an expert opinion on his likelihood of re-offending.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury screening or instructions, and upheld the sentence as eminently fit given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer and aggravated assault.

The accused had recently been discharged from the hospital to a 24-hour supervised care facility where his psychotic symptoms had significantly abated.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties, finding that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, his risk is adequately managed in the community.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with a requirement to reside at the supervised facility.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a forensic mental health facility with community privileges, rather than granting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Board denied the conditional discharge due to public safety concerns, emphasizing the need for swift intervention in case of mental state decompensation, despite the appellant's recent stability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court deferred to the Board's expert opinion, supported by the appellant's psychiatrist, that a detention order was necessary to ensure public protection by allowing intervention before the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act were met, which conditional discharge mechanisms might not adequately provide.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by misinterpreting the AMA Guides, improperly weighing the evidence of her chiropractor regarding psychological and substance abuse impairments, and violating procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact, as it was beyond the scope of a chiropractor to assign ratings for psychological impairments or diagnose substance abuse disorders.

The applicant was injured in an all-terrain vehicle rollover and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criteria 6 or 7, preferring the respondent's medical assessments over the applicant's, noting that the applicant's chiropractor improperly assigned ratings outside his scope of practice and without conducting in-person assessments.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer marked impairments in the spheres of function under Criterion 8.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $9,977.20 in overpaid income replacement benefits to the respondent, plus interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his claims for catastrophic impairment, attendant care benefits, and medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by allowing the respondent's psychiatric expert to testify outside the scope of her report, by limiting the evidence of the applicant's chiropractor regarding psychological impairments, and by failing to properly consider the meaning of 'useful function'.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or fact.

The adjudicator held that the respondent's expert evidence was latent in her report, the chiropractor was not qualified to opine on psychological impairments, and the applicant was improperly attempting to relitigate findings of fact.

At a case management hearing in a guardianship dispute, the court ordered the waiver of solicitor-client privilege for three lawyers who prepared Powers of Attorney for the incapable person, Paul Tanti, to allow them to testify at the upcoming hearing.

The court also directed that former Section 3 counsel for Paul Tanti transition to the role of amicus curiae, given her intimate knowledge of the complex and highly acrimonious proceeding, and set out the order of presentation and permitted evidence for the upcoming hearing.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexually assaulting a young woman after breaking into her university residence.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record of over 70 convictions, primarily for property offences including numerous break and enters.

The court found the offence to be a home invasion sexual assault, an aggravating factor, while noting the offender's recent efforts at rehabilitation as mitigating.

The court determined the appropriate global sentence range was 9 to 10 years, but credited the offender with 3 years already served for the related break and enter conviction, resulting in a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after witnessing a fatal bus accident, claiming it caused a catastrophic impairment (schizophrenia).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's condition was pre-existing or prodromal.

The Tribunal found that while the accident may have triggered an acute psychotic episode, the applicant was likely prodromal for years prior and failed to prove he sustained a Class 4 marked or Class 5 extreme impairment in the required spheres of function.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care, rehabilitation support worker services, and other expenses, as the applicant's non-catastrophic policy limits were exhausted and the expenses were either not incurred or not reasonable and necessary.

The appellant, D.M., appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, which followed convictions for sexual assault and child pornography.

The Crown conceded that the sentencing judge erred by not explicitly considering the appellant's future treatment prospects at the designation stage, as required by R. v. Boutilier.

However, the Court of Appeal found this error to be harmless, concluding that the overwhelming evidence, including consistent psychiatric opinions on the appellant's high risk of sexual recidivism and his lack of credibility regarding amenability to treatment, compelled the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

An application to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed as it would not have altered the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed.

This appeal concerned the capacity of Paul Tanti to enter into a marriage with Sharon Joseph.

Raymond Tanti, Paul's son, appealed the trial judge's decision that the marriage was valid, arguing his father lacked the requisite capacity.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's findings, holding that the correct legal test for marriage capacity was applied, which requires understanding the nature of the marriage contract and its duties.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including the discounting of non-contemporaneous expert opinions and the reliance on direct lay witness testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the marriage.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The proceedings spanned over 19 years, involving three trials, an appeal, and a dangerous offender application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the net pre-verdict delay was below the Jordan ceiling after deducting significant periods of defence delay—including the accused absconding and repeatedly changing counsel—and exceptional circumstances such as a mistrial.

The court also found the post-verdict delay reasonable, as it was justified by the complexity of the dangerous offender application, further defence delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The moving party sought to validate her marriage to an elderly man with worsening dementia, which was challenged by the responding party, the man's son.

The son had previously obtained a guardianship order in the wife's absence and alleged the marriage was predatory.

The court found that the son failed to adduce sufficient evidence that his father lacked the capacity to marry on the date of the wedding.

The court placed little weight on retrospective expert assessments and relied on direct evidence of the couple's long-term relationship and the father's understanding of the marriage.

The marriage was declared valid, and the son was ordered to pay $50,000 in full indemnity costs due to his egregious conduct.