Dr. Paul Benassi

Brian O’Donnell pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and discharging a prohibited firearm with intent after shooting the victim, Lacramioara Flanagan, with a sawed-off shotgun from behind at close range.

The offences were premeditated and caused significant physical, emotional, and financial harm to the victim.

The Court considered the offender’s psychiatric and cognitive disorders, his criminal history, and the impact of harsh pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence imposed was 2859 days imprisonment before credit, with concurrent sentences and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a no-contact order.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that granted David Aliko an absolute discharge after he was found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for various offences due to mental disorder.

CAMH sought to set aside the absolute discharge and reinstate a conditional discharge, citing Mr. Aliko's significant deterioration and new criminal charges post-disposition.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence detailing Mr. Aliko's post-discharge behaviour and mental state, which indicated a substantial risk of serious harm to the public without Board supervision.

The court found it was in the interests of justice to admit this evidence.

The applicant, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, sought an exemption from the mandatory SOIRA registry under section 24(1) of the Charter, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu.

The court ordered a psychiatric assessment, which indicated the applicant had pedophilic and hebephilic interests.

The court found the applicant failed to establish that he was not at an increased risk of committing a future sex offence.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to register for 10 years.

This is a sentencing decision for two defendants, N.P. and C.O., who were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their daughter, J.P., contrary to s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The conviction followed an appeal by the Crown after initial acquittals.

The court considered the unsanitary living conditions, the defendants' difficult upbringings, their youth at the time of the offence, and the absence of lasting physical or mental harm to the child.

Applying principles of restraint, individual deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation for both defendants, rejecting the Crown's request for a conditional sentence and the defence's request for an absolute discharge for N.P.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), seeking a conditional discharge.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's continued alcohol consumption, which increased his risk of violence and non-compliance with medication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered alcohol use as relevant to public safety and that its decision was reasonable, given the need for safeguards to manage the appellant's risk in the community.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences against intimate partners, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

He argued the ORB erred in finding him a significant threat and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge, emphasizing a four-year period of stability while on bail.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to his psychiatric history, ongoing symptoms, medication non-compliance, and impaired insight.

The court also found that a detention order was necessary given the inadequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage his risk, and that the ORB had implicitly considered and rejected a conditional discharge.

The 82-year-old accused was found guilty of manslaughter for the domestic homicide of his wife.

At the time of the offence, the accused was experiencing a major depressive episode and subsequently entered a catatonic state.

The court weighed the gravity of domestic homicide against the accused's age, mental illness, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the global pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, reduced to 14 months and 26 days after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdowns, followed by 3 years of probation.

The Ontario Review Board recommended an inquiry to determine if criminal proceedings against Ms. McDonald, who was found unfit to stand trial for arson, should be stayed.

Following a joint recommendation from counsel and an assessment confirming permanent unfitness and low public threat, the court ordered a stay of proceedings.

The decision considered the seriousness of the offence, the salutary effects of the stay (focus on treatment, judicial resource savings), and public confidence in the administration of justice, concluding that reasonable, well-informed persons would not expect indefinite proceedings for a permanently unfit individual.