Dr. Swayze

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a Restriction of Liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The hospital had transferred the accused to a higher security unit following unprovoked assaults on staff and co-patients.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary due to the accused's unpredictable violence driven by impulsivity and autism-related deficits.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order.

The Board declined to remove the requirement for supervised accommodation but removed the condition requiring abstinence from alcohol and drugs, finding it clinically unnecessary.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats and was subject to a detention order at a psychiatric hospital.

At the annual review hearing, the Review Board considered whether the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's history of rapid relapse, polysubstance use, and psychotic symptomatology necessitated ongoing supervision.

The Board concluded that the accused remained a significant threat and ordered the continuation of the existing detention order.

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

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and Attorney General sought a continuation of the detention order.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a severe alcohol use disorder and organic brain injury, which predictably lead to aggression and violence when intoxicated.

The Board concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition was to continue the detention order, as the accused requires a highly supervised environment to maintain abstinence and medication adherence.

The accused, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for murder in 1985, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review hearing.

The Board considered psychiatric evidence indicating the accused continues to exhibit problematic sexualized behaviour and lacks insight into his condition.

Accepting the joint submission of the parties, the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered the continuation of his detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The Board heard uncontroverted expert evidence that while the accused had a stable year and transitioned to independent living, he continues to lack insight and remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions, including a requirement to reside at a specified address and a consent to treatment clause.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused, who suffers from treatment refractory schizophrenia and lacks insight into his illness, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, noting that a conditional discharge would be inadequate to manage the risk of decompensation and reoffending.

The Ministry of the Attorney General requested an early hearing to add a no-contact condition and a geographic boundary restriction to the accused's disposition, following his NCR finding for manslaughter.

The Ontario Review Board ordered a condition prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the victim's immediate family and a 150-metre restriction from their homes, workplaces, or places of worship.

However, the Board declined to impose the broad geographic boundary restriction, finding it was not necessary or appropriate given the accused's clinical stability and the potential negative impact on his reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assaulting a peace officer.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had shown marked improvement in medication compliance, engagement with the treatment team, and insight over the past year.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but concluded that a conditional discharge, rather than continued detention, was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The conditional discharge included terms to report monthly, abstain from substances, and consent to treatment.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 10, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for possession of weapons dangerous, sought a conditional discharge or alternatively a new hearing.

The Board maintained a detention order in the general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with relaxed reporting requirements.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable due to inadequate reasons regarding whether the appellant's risk to the public could be managed under a conditional discharge.

The court directed the Board to reconsider the disposition at its next hearing with proper consideration of relevant factors, including mechanisms for securing attendance at hospital and the timing of any intervention.

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a conditional discharge, and also challenged the Board’s decision to proceed with a three-member panel after one scheduled member became ill.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board reasonably found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety in light of active symptoms, refusal to engage in assessment or treatment, and medication non-compliance.

The court further held that the panel satisfied the statutory quorum under s. 672.41(1) and properly exercised its discretion to proceed.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following convictions for criminal harassment and breaches of probation, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal history including numerous sexual offences, violent offences, and repeated breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric assessments diagnosing schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, paraphilias, and substance abuse disorders.

Expert evidence established a high risk of future sexual violence and persistent failure to restrain behaviour.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

The offender failed to establish that community management would adequately protect the public, and the court imposed a penitentiary sentence followed by long‑term supervision.

The elderly respondent was found not criminally responsible for killing his wife due to a delusional disorder.

The Ontario Review Board granted him an absolute discharge, with the majority concluding he did not pose a significant threat to public safety due to his physical frailty.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it relied on the respondent's physical presentation while failing to reconcile that assessment with medical evidence indicating he lacked insight, was poorly motivated to take medication, and posed a significant risk of violent re-offence.

The matter was remitted for an expedited re-hearing.

The respondent, who suffers from bipolar disorder, refused proposed medical treatment.

The attending physician found him incapable of making this decision, and the Consent and Capacity Board confirmed this finding.

On judicial review, the Superior Court of Justice overturned the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable and based on a misapplication of the statutory test for capacity.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of incapacity was unreasonable because it conflated the respondent's best interests with his capacity to decide, and failed to recognize that the respondent understood his condition and the consequences of refusing treatment.