Dr. Sheridan

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for charges including advocating genocide and willful promotion of hatred after posting over 4,000 antisemitic messages on social media.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the panel found that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his diagnosis of schizophrenia, pathological anger, and high risk of violent re-offending.

The Board ordered a detention order with discretionary privileges, including the potential for indirectly supervised passes in the community, and imposed strict conditions monitoring his access to the internet and social media.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and related offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders, had successfully transitioned to semi-independent living in the community.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, as an absolute discharge would likely lead to medication nonadherence, substance relapse, and decompensation.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with terms including mandatory abstinence, medication compliance, and a condition to return to the hospital for psychiatric assessment upon notice.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and should be granted an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant required a longer transition period in independent living to ensure medication compliance and mental stability.

The appellant appealed a six-year sentence for two counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful confinement.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by treating a risk assessment as having no value due to the appellant's alleged dishonesty and by classifying the appellant's mental health issues as "neutral" rather than mitigating.

While upholding the application of the intimate partner aggravating factor, the appellate court re-evaluated the sentence, reducing it from six years to five years concurrent.

The Hospital appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to grant Jeffrey Smith an absolute discharge, arguing it was unreasonable given his history of violence, substance abuse, and limited insight into his mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly given the high standard for finding a "significant threat" and the deference owed to the Board's expertise.

Jeffery Smith, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant public safety threat.

The ORB, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, found that despite a treating psychiatrist's opinion, other expert opinions and the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and recent concerning behaviour (stunt driving and dishonesty) indicated a continued significant threat to public safety without ORB oversight.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conditional discharge.

The appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible for breach of recognizance and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight, refusal to take medication, and intended cannabis use, which experts testified would increase his risk of physical aggression.

The defendant pleaded guilty to child luring and making sexually explicit material available to a child.

The offences involved online grooming of a 13-year-old American girl in 2012 when the defendant was 25 years old.

The defendant misrepresented his age as 19 and engaged in sexual acts on webcam and obtained a nude photograph of the complainant.

The court imposed a sentence of four months incarceration on each count to be served concurrently, followed by three years of probation with strict conditions including restrictions on contact with minors, internet access, and electronic devices.

A lifetime SOIRA registration order and DNA order were also imposed.