Dr. Sebastien Prat

The accused was found not criminally responsible on charges of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and identity fraud.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine the appropriate disposition.

The hospital and Crown argued the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and rapid decompensation, seeking a conditional discharge.

The accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence, finding the accused posed a significant threat to public safety, and ordered a conditional discharge with terms proposed by the hospital, excluding a no-contact order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for an indecent act, criminal harassment, and uttering threats.

The accused sought a Conditional Discharge, while the hospital and Attorney General sought a continuation of the Detention Order.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his persistent schizophrenia, refractory psychotic symptoms, lack of insight, and history of noncompliance with treatment.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order remained the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to ensure public safety and allow for rapid readmission if necessary.

The Ontario Review Board held a Restriction of Liberties hearing after the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for several offences, was readmitted to the hospital following a relapse into methamphetamine use.

The hospital notified the Board of the significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberties.

Based on a joint submission and evidence from the attending psychiatrist, the Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive option available to manage the increased risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and other offences.

The accused sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, the removal of a cannabis prohibition from his disposition.

The hospital and Crown sought continued detention.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused lacks insight, rejects his schizophrenia diagnosis, and would abandon treatment and abuse substances if discharged, the Board found he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered continued detention with the existing conditions, including the cannabis prohibition.

The court sentenced Mouhamad Al Jalmoud for two counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and one count of dangerous operation causing bodily harm, following a jury trial.

The jury found him not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for three related counts of failing to stop after an accident.

The court reviewed the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

Al Jalmoud was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months in custody (after credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions), with a 15-year driving prohibition to follow, and a DNA order.

The decision discusses the impact of mental illness on moral culpability, the range of sentences for similar offences, and the significance of both aggravating and mitigating factors.