Janice E. Blackburn

The Empowerment Council and the Criminal Lawyers' Association brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The underlying appeal concerned whether the failure to provide resources for supportive community housing breached the appellant's rights under section 7 of the Charter, and whether the Board had remedial jurisdiction to order funding.

The court dismissed the Empowerment Council's motion, finding its proposed intervention on the Board's inquisitorial role would not assist the court.

The court granted the Criminal Lawyers' Association's motion to intervene solely on the issue of the Board's remedial Charter jurisdiction to make funding orders.

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for multiple murders and sexual offences in the 1970s and 1980s, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a high-security facility.

At his annual review, all parties jointly submitted that he should be transferred to a less secure facility for a 90-day independent psychiatric assessment to explore a potential move to a less secure environment.

The Board rejected the joint submission.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain its rejection of the joint submission, misapprehended the evidence regarding the utility of the assessment, and failed to fulfill its inquisitorial duty to explore the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible in 2008 and held under detention orders until the Ontario Review Board granted a conditional discharge in 2019.

The hospital appealed, supported by the Crown, arguing the Board's majority reasons failed to explain how public safety would be protected given the respondent's history of rapid decompensation and recent involuntary admissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding the Board's reasons inadequate to justify the disposition.

The appellant, detained under the Ontario Review Board for over 30 years, appealed the Board's disposition continuing his detention at St. Joseph's Healthcare.

He argued the Board erred in refusing an adjournment, relying on hearsay evidence, failing to address his sleep deprivation, and refusing a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the adjournment issue moot and no basis to interfere with the Board's substantive decisions, though it noted the Board erred in its approach to the adjournment request and urged it to address the sleep deprivation issue at the next review.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

He argued the Board failed to inquire into the hospital's diagnostic assessment and erred by not transferring him to a less secure facility closer to his family in the Greater Toronto Area.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no treatment impasse that required inquiry and concluding the Board reasonably found the secure environment at Waypoint was necessary to manage the appellant's risk to public safety.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2008, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention order.

He argued the Board erred in law by equating the harm of criminal harassment with a 'significant threat to the safety of the public' under s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not focus solely on the index offence but considered all evidence, including the likelihood that the appellant would discontinue medication and engage in physical and aggressive behaviour.

The Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing her detention.

She argued she was entitled to an absolute discharge as she only posed a risk of minimal harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition was reasonable and supported by the evidence, though it encouraged the Board to explore community integration at her upcoming annual review.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other charges.

The Ontario Review Board granted him an absolute discharge, finding he no longer posed a significant risk to public safety.

The hospital appealed, seeking to introduce fresh evidence that the respondent had rapidly decompensated, resumed substance abuse, and become aggressive shortly after his discharge.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it could reasonably have affected the board's decision as it undermined the factual foundation of the absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the board for a rehearing.

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1984, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention in a general forensic unit.

The Board found that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his explosive anger, untreated paranoia, and lack of insight.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of significant threat was reasonable and that it correctly applied the least onerous and least restrictive disposition test under the Criminal Code.