Dr. Quinn

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for offences including threatening death and causing a disturbance.

The accused, who has diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder and Substance Use Disorder, had made progress but continued to lack insight into his mental illness and need for medication.

The Board accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused remained a moderate risk for violent re-offending and required the structure of a forensic setting.

The Board concluded the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continued detention disposition, while expanding his indirectly supervised community access to facilitate reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for weapons and break-and-enter offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had recently been readmitted to the hospital due to paranoia but showed rapid improvement after starting clozapine.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and that a continuation of the Detention Order with amended privileges is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and referred to the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, and has a history of violence and noncompliance with medication.

The Board applied the Winko test and unanimously found that the accused represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A Detention Order was issued with privileges up to indirectly supervised hospital and grounds access, taking into account an outstanding criminal charge for which the accused was remanded in custody.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert witness, who failed to attend the hearing for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness.

Relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's claims of severe impairment and social isolation, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

Consequently, claims for medication expenses beyond the non-catastrophic limit, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had transitioned to a group home and was doing well, though he continued to experience psychotic symptoms and delusional beliefs.

The hospital, supported by the Attorney General and the accused's counsel, recommended continuing the Detention Order with amended pass privileges.

The Board unanimously found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the requested amendments to allow for indirectly supervised passes.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the accused's disposition and fitness to stand trial.

The accused, who has a severe intellectual developmental disorder, was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including sexual assault and assault.

Relying on the uncontested psychiatric evidence and applying the Supreme Court's recent test in Bharwani, the Board unanimously found the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot meaningfully participate in the process.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current hospital Detention Order, finding the accused poses a significant threat to public safety and requires a highly structured and supervised setting, while noting ongoing efforts to secure appropriate community accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused suffers from bipolar disorder and a traumatic brain injury, and has a history of substance use and non-adherence to treatment in the community.

The Board unanimously accepted the joint submission of the parties and the evidence of the attending psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order with amendments to the geographical area for passes, finding that a less restrictive disposition would not adequately protect the public.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple violent and driving offences.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, recently experienced a relapse in substance use resulting in a temporary restriction of his liberty.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, lack of insight, and vulnerability to substance relapse.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention order at the hospital, while granting limited 36-hour passes to visit his approved person in the community.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and using an imitation firearm, was subject to an annual review of his detention disposition.

Following a period of medication non-compliance, the accused decompensated and made death threats against a member of the Review Board, leading to his readmission to the hospital.

The Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight, risk of substance use, and attitudes supporting violence.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention order with a new condition prohibiting contact with any member of the Review Board.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) and the cost of an attendant care assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits and sought to exclude late-served s. 44 catastrophic impairment reports.

The Tribunal admitted the reports, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's back pain and surgeries.

Relying on both the applicant's and the respondent's medical experts, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered significant psychological impairments, including a marked to extreme impairment in adaptation to work settings, rendering her completely unable to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal awarded the post-104 IRBs but denied the attendant care assessment cost due to insufficient evidence.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including robbery.

The accused sought an amendment to his disposition to allow him to reside in Lambton County.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and a history of absconding.

The Board dismissed the request to add Lambton County to the approved accommodations, finding it lacked appropriate supervised group homes and would increase the risk to public safety.

The existing Detention Order was continued.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, who claims over $4 million in damages following a motor vehicle accident, to attend independent medical examinations by a psychiatrist, neurologist, physiatrist, and vocational evaluator.

The plaintiff opposed the assessments, arguing they were unnecessary and duplicative.

The court granted the motion, finding that given the complex medical issues, including alleged traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and significant loss of income claims, trial fairness dictated that the defendants be permitted to have the plaintiff assessed by these specialists to respond to the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The court also admonished plaintiff's counsel for inappropriately attempting to impose conditions directly on the defendants' proposed assessors.