Dr. Ramshaw

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing to order an independent assessment at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

The appellant did not challenge his continued detention at Oak Ridge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that an independent assessment was unnecessary was reasonable and supported by the uncontradicted evidence of a doctor.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for the killing of his mother.

He raised three grounds of appeal: that the trial judge erred in dismissing a mistrial application based on a reasonable apprehension of bias after the appellant allegedly overheard the judge discussing expert evidence with a deputy; that the trial judge erred in finding the appellant failed to establish the defence of not criminally responsible; and that the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge conducted a sufficient factual inquiry regarding the bias allegation, that the weighing of conflicting medical opinions on the NCR defence was within the trial judge's exclusive province, and that the sentence was fit given the brutal nature of the killing.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of criminal harassment and invitation to sexual touching.

Prior to sentencing, psychiatric assessments suggested he may have been not criminally responsible due to mental disorder (NCRMD) at the time of the offences.

The trial judge ruled he lacked jurisdiction to enter an NCRMD verdict after the jury was discharged.

On appeal, the appellant introduced fresh psychiatric evidence.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that the fresh evidence could reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board applied an incorrect legal test by focusing exclusively on public safety and unreasonably disregarded expert evidence that he could be managed in a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered all statutory criteria and balanced the appellant's treatment needs against the risk he posed to the public.

The Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the proposed management plan was speculative and that the appellant was not an appropriate candidate for a medium secure setting due to his unwillingness to undergo a necessary medication trial.

The appellant appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), arguing that the evidence on the record was insufficient to support the finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the expert opinion of Dr. Ramshaw, which concluded the appellant was psychotic and incapable of knowing his actions were morally or legally wrong, was tendered as part of a joint application and was not challenged at trial.

The court found the NCR finding was correct based on the record.