Dr. Wesley Sutton

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on a charge of aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type, did not attend the hearing.

Based on the hospital report and the testimony of the attending psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial due to severe thought disorganization and delusional ideations.

The Board also concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely stop taking his medication and decompensate if released.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, with additional terms allowing for indirectly supervised community passes and community living to facilitate placement on housing waiting lists.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and assaulting a police officer.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had a history of medication noncompliance and violence when unwell.

Although his condition improved significantly after starting Clozapine, he continued to exhibit residual disorganization, mild paranoia, and limited insight.

The Board accepted the medical evidence that the accused would likely discontinue medication and deteriorate rapidly without the supervision of the forensic service.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused is currently incarcerated awaiting trial on numerous new violent offences.

Based on psychiatric evidence indicating severe antisocial personality disorder, substance abuse, and a high risk of reoffending, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, concluding it is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available to manage his risk.

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

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for arson and personating a peace officer, was subject to a detention order at a hospital.

The accused requested an amendment to allow the use of cannabis from a licensed dispensary.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, noting a clear link between his substance use and worsening symptoms of psychosis, including agitation and paranoia.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with a strict prohibition on all substance use, including cannabis.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to mood instability, substance use, and risk of violence if unsupervised.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention order, with a modification to allow the hospital to approve housing in the community that is not necessarily supervised.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats.

The accused, who has schizophrenia, an intellectual disability, and antisocial personality disorder, had a history of violence and non-compliance.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Accepting a joint submission, the Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order but granted additional indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, as well as accompanied community passes, to support his gradual rehabilitation.

The appellant, George Bennett, appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a finding of incapacity by the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his ability to make treatment decisions about antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erroneously preferred historical evidence over current evidence and erred in its assessment of his ability to appreciate the benefits of the medication.

The Court of Appeal, stepping into the shoes of the Superior Court, dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's decision.

The court affirmed that historical medical evidence can properly support an assessment of current capacity and that the Board was entitled to make credibility findings and prefer expert evidence.