Dr. Sanjiv Gulati

The accused was sentenced after conviction for sexual interference involving digital penetration of a child family member, and after a guilty plea to distributing cannabis to minors.

Applying the proportionality principle and the sentencing objectives in ss. 718 to 718.3 of the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the victim's age, the breach of trust, the family relationship, and the lasting harm described in victim impact statements.

The court treated the offender's lack of remorse as an absence of mitigation, not an aggravating factor, and weighed his status as a first offender and some treatment amenability as mitigating considerations.

A penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed for the s. 151 offence, together with a concurrent 30-day sentence on the Cannabis Act offence and ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons, and s. 161 orders.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats.

The accused, who has a schizophrenia spectrum disorder and a history of substance abuse, had made significant progress over the past year, including transitioning to independent living and maintaining abstinence from substances.

Relying on the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely disengage from treatment and relapse without a disposition.

However, given his progress, the Board concluded that the risk could now be managed with a conditional discharge.

This case concerns the sentencing of a 68-year-old man, B.M., who pled guilty to making child pornography and voyeurism by secretly recording two neighbour boys showering.

The offences occurred over several years and involved significant planning and breach of trust.

The court considered extensive victim impact statements, the accused’s personal and medical background, and expert reports including a section 21 Mental Health Act report.

Despite B.M.’s remorse, exemplary life, and low risk to reoffend, the court imposed a global sentence of three years (two years concurrent for making child pornography and one year consecutive for voyeurism), emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in child sexual offences.

The decision also includes lifetime prohibitions on contact with victims and related persons, DNA and firearm orders, and a 20-year sex offender registration requirement.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for murder due to schizophrenia.

The hospital and the Attorney General submitted that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, citing recent substance use, rule violations, and drug-seeking behaviour, though noting recent improvements in cooperation.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention at the hospital, while approving the hospital's recommendation for a graduated increase in community access privileges.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a detention order and denied an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued the Board erred in failing to grant an absolute discharge, giving weight to previous appellate findings, and considering the vigour of counsel's submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, based on expert evidence of likely relapse and criminal conduct without supervision.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she posed no significant risk to public safety based on the absence of violent behaviour since 2015 and abstention from substance abuse since 2016.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the Board properly applied the test under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that evidence supported a finding of significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that absence of recent violent behaviour eliminated risk, noting that the appellant's stability was contingent on the structured hospital environment and that relapse into substance abuse and medication non-compliance would likely result in psychotic symptoms and violent behaviour.