3 total
First-time offender sentenced to 8 years for brutal sexual assault and attacking an intervening bystander.
The offender was found guilty of the brutal sexual assault and assault of a vulnerable woman, as well as assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief against a good Samaritan who intervened.
The offender, a first-time offender with schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder, violently attacked the woman in an alleyway and subsequently chased and assaulted the intervening bystander.
The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the extreme violence and callousness of the attack.
The offender was sentenced to a global penitentiary term of 8 years, comprising 7 years for the offences against the woman and 1 year consecutive for the offences against the bystander, less pre-sentence custody credit.
NCR disposition maintained; accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.
The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, resides in the community and has made progress in medication adherence with significant support.
The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to limited insight and risk of relapse.
The current disposition discharging the accused on conditions was maintained.
Appeal from Ontario Review Board conditional discharge dismissed; expert evidence supported finding of significant risk.
The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and attempt to choke, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering a conditional discharge.
The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he remained a significant risk to public safety was unreasonable and overly focused on potential medication non-compliance.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating the appellant would likely discontinue treatment if absolutely discharged, which would increase his risk of violent behaviour.