G. Choi

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board dismissing his Charter application.

He alleged that a delay in holding his annual disposition review hearing violated his rights under s. 7 of the Charter and sought costs, damages, and declaratory relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the minor delay did not significantly deprive the appellant of his liberty or security of the person.

The Court also held that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to grant costs, damages, or declaratory relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter, and is not required to adopt an inquisitorial approach when hearing Charter applications.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a psychiatric hospital with privileges to live in approved community accommodation.

He argued the Board erred by refusing disclosure of materials from his original NCR hearing and by failing to order an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had no jurisdiction to review the NCR hearing's procedural fairness.

The Court also held the Board's refusal to grant a discharge was reasonable, as evidence supported the finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the community and required hospital boundaries to maintain stability.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision setting aside a stay of proceedings for impaired driving charges.

The trial judge had originally granted the stay under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to delay.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the lower courts reasonably attributed a four-month adjournment to neutral delay rather than institutional delay.

The Court also agreed that the prejudice of additional legal fees did not override the public interest in a trial on the merits in a borderline delay case.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred by failing to consider an absolute or conditional discharge, and by refusing a provision that would allow him to live in 24-hour supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board did not err in refusing a discharge given the appellant's ongoing risk to the community.

However, the Court found the Board erred in law and misapprehended evidence by refusing the supervised accommodation provision, which was recommended for therapeutic reasons and to place the appellant on a waiting list.

Despite finding this error, the Court declined to alter the disposition due to fresh evidence and a pending hearing regarding a significant increase in the restriction of the appellant's liberty.