3 total
Accused found unfit to stand trial and ordered detained, but not permanently unfit.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for a young person found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault with a weapon.
The parties jointly submitted that the accused was permanently unfit and required a Detention Order at CAMH.
The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and poses a significant threat to public safety, necessitating a Detention Order.
However, the Board rejected the joint submission that the accused is permanently unfit, finding that a full fitness assessment and tailored fitness education program had not been adequately explored given his learning disabilities and recent improvements on new medication.
Accused remains unfit and a significant threat; permanent unfitness finding rejected pending appropriate fitness training.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for a young person found unfit to stand trial on weapons and assault charges.
The accused, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and learning disabilities, was jointly recommended by all parties to be found permanently unfit and transferred to an adult facility.
The Board agreed the accused remains unfit to stand trial and poses a significant threat to public safety, ordering his detention at CAMH.
However, the Board declined to find him permanently unfit, concluding that he had not received appropriate fitness training tailored to his cognitive needs.
A young person received a non-custodial sentence for aggravated assault due to extensive house arrest.
A young person was found guilty of aggravated assault following a trial.
The Crown sought a 9-month custody and supervision order followed by 14 months of probation.
The defence sought a non-custodial sentence, arguing that the accused's 914 days of pre-trial house arrest should be credited as equivalent to the proposed custodial sentence.
The court imposed a 24-month probation order with conditions including 50 hours of community service, a 5-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, finding that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the accused's vulnerability, mental health difficulties, compliance during house arrest, and the lengthy period already spent under restrictive bail conditions.
