Dr. Yedishtra Naidoo

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and breach of probation.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of substance abuse, has been subject to a Conditional Discharge and living in the community for many years.

While stable and compliant with treatment, the accused continues to lack insight into his mental illness and stated he would stop taking medication if granted an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted psychiatric evidence that without supervision, the accused would likely decompensate and pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various treatment plans following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders), noting marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

However, the Tribunal denied all claimed treatment plans because the applicant failed to direct the panel to medical evidence supporting their reasonableness and necessity.

The respondent's claim for repayment of previously funded services was also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge following a finding of not criminally responsible for harassing communications and criminal harassment.

The accused, who has schizoaffective disorder and a history of substance use, had recently relapsed into substance use after a period of stability.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the uncontradicted hospital evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The conditional discharge was maintained with the same conditions, including substance screening.

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

The accused, who has treatment-resistant schizophrenia, was previously found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and aggravated assault of a peace officer.

The parties jointly submitted that the detention order should be maintained with minor changes to privileges.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for serious sexual assault and assault charges, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention order.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was the least onerous and restrictive option given his recent progress in managing his mental disorder and substance use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly the psychiatrist's view that a detention order was necessary for rapid intervention in case of relapse, given the appellant's history of substance abuse and associated violence.

The court emphasized the Board's obligation to protect public safety and the high standard for overturning Board decisions.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reporting to various assessors, including failing to disclose a post-accident trip to Hawaii, criminal charges, and a subsequent motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove she suffered a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to satisfy the 'but for' causation test, as the evidence did not establish the 2016 accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his detention.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant public threat and in not adequately applying Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal granted fresh evidence motions from both parties but dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court affirmed that the appellant remained a significant threat due to unstable mental health, risk of medication non-compliance, and substance abuse, which could lead to re-offending.

The refusal of a conditional discharge was also deemed reasonable, as no adequate community treatment plan was in place, despite the consideration of Gladue factors.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault causing bodily harm and threatening death arising from a violent sexual assault by a male roommate against a young woman in her bedroom and kitchen.

The defence advanced cannabis intoxication and major depressive disorder as mitigating factors through social work and psychiatric opinion evidence, but the court rejected those positions because the offender's self-reporting was inconsistent and unreliable.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in light of the violent invasion of the victim's living space, bodily harm to her wrists, threats to kill her into silence, and lasting psychological harm.

A suspended sentence or conditional sentence was held to be manifestly unfit, and a global penitentiary sentence of three years was imposed with ancillary DNA, firearm prohibition, SOIRA, and no-contact orders.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 11, 2018, which found that the appellant continues to pose a risk of serious harm to the public and imposed a conditional discharge with reporting requirements and residence restrictions.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no material change in the appellant's condition since the previous disposition and no basis to challenge the Board's conclusion that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated a risk of serious harm if the appellant were released without conditions.

The defendant was convicted of possession of child pornography following a trial.

At sentencing, the defendant challenged the mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment under section 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code as a violation of section 12 of the Charter (cruel and unusual punishment).

The court determined that the appropriate sentence was seven months imprisonment followed by three years probation.

The court found that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate and therefore did not constitute a Charter breach.

The court declined to impose a section 161.1(a)-(c) order, finding the defendant posed a low risk to reoffend based on expert evidence.

The 81-year-old offender was convicted of aggravated assault and assault against his intimate partner, a 77-year-old woman, after knocking her down and striking her, causing a fractured patella and other injuries.

The court considered the offender's advanced age and diagnosed personality disorders, but found they did not preclude a custodial sentence given the severity of the domestic violence, his lack of remorse, and a high risk of future violence.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment followed by three years of probation.