Dr. R. Jones

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

The accused had previously been found unfit to stand trial on charges of robbery.

Based on the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, which causes disorganized thoughts and delusional beliefs that impair his ability to instruct counsel.

However, the Board concluded he is not permanently unfit, as his medication is still being optimized.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital, but expanded his community pass privileges to include the Greater Toronto Area for therapeutic purposes.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on multiple counts of assault and threatening.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the panel reviewed psychiatric reports indicating the accused suffers from schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, lacks insight, and experiences grandiose and paranoid delusions.

The panel found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention order was issued with discretionary privileges, including accompanied passes on hospital grounds and escorted passes in the community.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and Crown recommended maintaining the current detention order, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted psychiatric evidence that the accused lacks insight, has a history of cannabis-induced decompensation, and would pose a significant threat to public safety without supervision.

The Board denied the absolute discharge and found a conditional discharge unfeasible due to a lack of community supports, ordering the continuation of the detention order.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 26, 2018, continuing a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's schizoaffective disorder, substance abuse disorder, history of violence, lack of insight into her mental illness, medication compliance issues, and actuarial risk assessment placing her at moderate-high risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition fell within the range of reasonable outcomes supported by evidence.