Dr. Prakash

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to appeal a 2015 finding that he was not criminally responsible (NCR) for several offences.

The applicant had previously launched and abandoned an appeal in 2017.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal, finding that the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time frame, failed to adequately explain the seven-year delay, and presented an appeal with doubtful merit.

The application for leave to extend time was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder after choking a sex worker to death, dismembering her body, and hiding her remains in his garage.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 12 to 13 years.

The court considered the offender's diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, his guilty plea, and the profound aggravating factors of the offence, including the vulnerability of the victim and the indignity to her remains.

The court sentenced the offender to mandatory life imprisonment with parole ineligibility set at 14 years.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats to burn property and breaching court orders.

The Ontario Review Board ordered her detention at a forensic mental health centre.

She appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant threat to the public and in failing to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the appellant lacked community supports, had a history of non-compliance, and would likely revert to substance abuse and decompensate if released.

The Attorney General of Canada sought the extradition of the respondent to the USA for attempted break and enter.

The respondent was previously found unfit to stand trial due to tertiary syphilis causing dementia.

The court held an inquiry under s. 672.851(4) of the Criminal Code to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The court accepted the defence expert's opinion that the respondent was permanently unfit, did not pose a significant threat to public safety, and that a stay was in the interests of the proper administration of justice.

The extradition proceedings were stayed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention order.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, while amicus curiae argued for a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight into his schizophrenia and the likelihood that he would stop taking his medication if discharged.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentence in which the trial judge imposed a conditional sentence.

The court held the sentencing judge was in the best position to assess the effect of the respondent's serious mental illness on the commission of the offence and that there was evidence supporting that finding.

The court also relied on the respondent's youth, controlled mental illness, family support, and the Crown's position at trial.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.