Dr. Van Impe

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was previously found unfit to stand trial for assault with a weapon.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review his disposition.

Applying the fitness test from R. Bharwani, the Board found that while the accused could answer Taylor test questions, he lacked a reality-based understanding of the proceedings due to his delusional belief that his sentence was already served.

The Board concluded he remains unfit to stand trial but ordered his transfer to a lower-security facility with accompanied community passes, as he no longer required a high-secure forensic envelope.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and uttering death threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had stabbed his mother during a psychotic episode.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing delusions and marginal capability.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with a transfer from a high-secure to a medium-secure forensic facility, prioritizing substance use programming and life skills development.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and weapons offences after an unprovoked attack on a correctional officer.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, ongoing auditory hallucinations, and risk of decompensation if medication non-compliant.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition, maintaining the accused in a high secure forensic unit, finding that a transfer to a medium secure facility was premature given his recent admission and need for further treatment evaluation.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of mischief, assault with a weapon, and assaulting a peace officer.

At an initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital reported that the accused's psychosis had been effectively treated and that he was intentionally exaggerating his misunderstanding of the court process to avoid being released to homelessness.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the medical evidence, finding that the accused had a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and could meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The accused was found fit to stand trial and ordered returned to court.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine whether the accused, who had previously been found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault with a weapon, was now fit.

Based on the joint submission of the parties and the psychiatric evidence that the accused's condition had significantly improved with antipsychotic medication, the Board found the accused fit to stand trial.

To ensure his fitness is maintained prior to trial, the Board issued a Keep Fit Order and directed that he remain detained at the hospital pending his return to court.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention disposition at a high secure facility, while the accused sought a transfer to a medium security facility.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remained volatile, frequently non-compliant with medication, and lacked insight, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care with no changes to his privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused remains treatment refractory, symptomatic, and unpredictable, requiring continued detention in a high secure program.

The Board accepted a joint submission to maintain the current disposition, with the sole modification of lifting the non-contact provisions regarding the accused's mother and grandmother.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, attacked a family member with a knife.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to ongoing psychotic symptoms and an inability to instruct counsel.

The Board ordered the accused to be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care with specific privileges, finding that his risk could not be managed in a less secure facility.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of non-capital murder and manslaughter.

The accused, who suffers from Major Neurocognitive Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder, did not attend the hearing.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and is at high risk for violent recidivism.

The Board ordered the renewal of the accused's current detention disposition at a high secure provincial forensic program.

The self-represented appellant appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and mischief charges.

The Crown conceded that the appellant was not advised of his right to request a trial in French pursuant to s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code at his first appearance.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had expressed a choice for a French trial and never waived it in a free and informed manner.

The Crown failed to prove that the breach of language rights did not cause prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the NCR verdict was quashed, and a new trial in French was ordered.

The Crown brought an application to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and uttering a death threat.

The offender had a lengthy history of violent offences, an antisocial personality structure, and a major mental illness.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, as his violent conduct was substantially intractable and he posed a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

Concluding that the risk could not be adequately managed in the community with a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after killing and decapitating his father while experiencing a cannabis-induced psychosis.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 5-year sentence, less pre-sentence custody credit, noting the horrific nature of the offence, the breach of trust, and the accused's lack of prior record, early guilty plea, and genuine remorse.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault causing bodily harm.

The first sexual assault occurred against an adult woman jogging in a public place.

The second sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm occurred against a 14-year-old girl walking home from school through a wooded area.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7.5 years; the defence sought 2.5 to 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 58 months (4 months for the assault on the adult and 4 years 6 months concurrent for the offences against the minor, consecutive to the first offence), with credit for 18 months of pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 40 months.

Ancillary orders included lifetime SOIRA registration, firearm prohibition, DNA orders, no-contact orders, and 20-year s. 161 restrictions.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated December 21, 2016, which ordered his continued detention in maximum security at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant had previously been detained at Ontario Shores with community privileges.

He advanced two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board misapprehended evidence regarding when he decompensated after being moved to the minimum-security unit; and second, that the Board failed to address the impact of a medication change on his behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and confirming that the Board was aware of and properly considered the medication change in its decision.

The accused killed the victim while suffering from a severe mental disorder.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission, supported by two comprehensive forensic psychiatric reports, that the accused was incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions due to psychosis and delusions.

The court accepted the joint submission, rendered a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and referred the disposition to the Ontario Review Board.