Janice Elaine Blackburn

This is an appeal from an initial disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for assault causing bodily harm and assaulting a peace officer.

The appellant challenged the ORB's finding that he posed a "significant threat to the safety of the public" and, alternatively, argued for a conditional discharge instead of a detention order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable and amply supported by evidence, including expert opinions on the appellant's high risk for violent behaviour, lack of insight, and history of non-compliance with treatment.

The court affirmed that the ORB's decision to impose a detention order with community living privileges was justified, particularly for supervising housing and ensuring prompt readmission if the appellant relapsed, given his history of threatening housemates.

This is an appeal by Derek Halat from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (ORB), dated January 14, 2019, and April 24, 2019.

The first appeal was rendered moot by the subsequent, stricter disposition.

The appellant, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and substance abuse disorder, was ordered detained at Waypoint, a maximum-security facility, due to a history of violence and recent threatening behavior, including death threats against hospital staff.

The ORB found the appellant continued to present a significant threat to public safety and that his transfer to Waypoint was necessary and appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found the ORB's rationale and outcome reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2003, challenged the Board's decision to maintain his detention, arguing the Board failed to consider statutory factors regarding reintegration into society and other needs, and failed to exercise the constant vigilance required for long-term detainees with non-violent index offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

A dual status offender appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing to schedule a placement hearing to determine whether his current place of custody (a penitentiary) was inappropriate to meet his mental health needs.

The appellant argued that the Review Board was obligated to review placement as part of every disposition review, or alternatively, that the Review Board should have exercised its discretion to order a placement hearing on its own motion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's interpretation that a significant change in circumstances is a prerequisite to scheduling a placement hearing on an offender's application, and found no error in the Review Board's refusal to schedule a hearing on its own motion.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the Board improperly conflated the risk of relapse in mental illness with the risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the evidence supported a finding of significant risk of reoffending based on the appellant's psychosis triggered by substance abuse, his history of violent behaviour, and high actuarial risk scores.

The Board properly rejected a conditional discharge, accepting expert evidence that Mental Health Act provisions would be inadequate to protect the public.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition granting a conditional discharge to an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat and imposed conditions including psychiatric medication compliance, monthly hospital reporting, and substance abstinence.

The Court of Appeal found the Board applied the wrong legal test, conflating the possibility of decompensation with a positive finding of significant threat.

However, fresh evidence of subsequent concerning behaviour (drug use, medication non-compliance, renewed focus on the victim) warranted remission to the Board for reassessment under the correct legal standard.

The appellant appealed a December 13, 2018 Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention on a General Forensic Unit at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant had been on conditional discharge and did not attend his Board hearing on December 10, 2018.

His counsel requested an adjournment without providing reasons or a timeframe.

The appellant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by rejecting the adjournment request and proceeding in his absence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary decision to proceed with the hearing.

The Crown appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board regarding a respondent found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for violent offences committed at a Canadian Forces recruiting centre.

The respondent was diagnosed with schizophrenia and found incapable of knowing his conduct was morally wrong.

The Board ordered detention on a secure forensic unit but granted limited indirectly supervised privileges to attend a local college for educational purposes within a two-kilometre radius of the hospital.

The Crown challenged both the indirect supervision privilege and the Board's failure to prohibit all contact with uniformed military personnel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding the Board did not err in law and its disposition was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.

The appellant, a 36-year-old man with a college diploma and prior employment, had been diagnosed with psychotic delusional disorder and was found not criminally responsible on criminal charges.

The Board found he could understand relevant information but could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of treatment decisions because he failed to acknowledge his mental condition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no procedural unfairness, no unreasonableness in the Board's application of the legal test, and no ineffective assistance of counsel.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning the Ontario Review Board's disposition restricting the liberty of a person in forensic custody.

The appellant, detained for 35 years following a brutal sexual assault conviction, challenged the Board's finding that he posed a continuing threat to public safety.

The appellant also raised procedural fairness concerns regarding the Board's refusal to issue a summons for surveillance tapes, withholding staff names, and declining to address Charter arguments raised only in submissions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's substantive findings but struck one provision of the order regarding an independent assessment due to lack of notice to the parties.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care but failed to specify the terms and conditions for an independent psychiatric assessment at Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

The Board had improperly delegated to the parties the responsibility to work out the details of the assessment.

The Court of Appeal found this constituted an error justifying intervention.

The court set aside the deficient disposition and replaced it with detailed terms for an in-patient assessment at ROH, including security measures, duration, and cost allocation to the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the Board applied the wrong legal test and failed to meaningfully consider whether a conditional discharge would adequately protect the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered the statutory requirements, including the safety of the public and the reintegration of the accused into society, and that the Board's decision to continue the detention order was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a December 13, 2017 disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a general forensic unit of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton.

However, while under that order, the appellant escaped and was subsequently ordered detained in a secure unit by a Board disposition dated September 18, 2018.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal from the 2017 disposition to be moot, as it had been replaced by the more restrictive 2018 disposition based on changed circumstances.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal and dismissed it.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the continued detention of a not criminally responsible accused at Waypoint Mental Health Care.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, alternatively a transfer to another facility, or in the further alternative, an independent psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the board's finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his extensive criminal history involving sexual violence, his psychiatric diagnoses including psychopathy, and his lack of engagement with treatment programs.

The court dismissed the appeal but directed the board to reconsider the request for an independent assessment at the next annual review.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and ordered detained at Waypoint Centre, a maximum security facility.

On appeal, the appellant sought to have the detention order set aside and a new hearing directed to consider placement at Ontario Shores, a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that while the appellant's recent conduct was positive, the Board was required to consider the entire picture, including the serious nature of the mental illness, the long history of mental disorder accompanied by serious criminal activity, past non-compliance with medication, and demonstrated history of quick decompensation and violence when medication was discontinued.

The court found the Board's conclusion that a transfer to medium security was premature was not unreasonable.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) offender with a long history of serious psychiatric illness, including sexual sadism and pedophilia.

The appellant sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure all-male facility at either the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) or Brockville Mental Health Centre to access escorted community privileges.

The Review Board majority refused the transfer, citing concerns about diminished quality of life.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to meaningfully consider the appellant's reintegration into society and by failing to assign appropriate weight to the appellant's reasonable preferences and the objective benefits of transfer.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 2, 2017.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, challenged three aspects of the Board's decision: (1) the finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety; (2) the Board's failure to consider a conditional discharge; and (3) the wording of condition 4(f) of the disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's findings on the first two issues but amended condition 4(f) to clarify the Board's intention regarding restrictions on the appellant's attendance at locations where children under 14 are present.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 19, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2009, sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure facility.

Although the parties agreed a transfer was appropriate, the Board majority refused the transfer.

The appellant challenged the decision on grounds of procedural unfairness and failure to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board, finding that while procedural fairness was maintained and the Board's decision fell within the range of reasonable outcomes, the Board erred by failing to consider ordering an independent psychiatric assessment given the uncertainty surrounding the appellant's diagnosis.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 12, 2017, regarding his placement and security regime.

The appellant and Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care argued that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable.

The Board had concluded that public safety would be compromised if the appellant was transferred unless the maximum security regime at Waypoint could be effectively replicated at the receiving hospital, which would negate the purpose of transfer.

The court noted that further assessment by an independent assessor remained possible at the appellant's annual hearing scheduled for early April.

A dual-status offender appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to decline his request for a placement review hearing as part of his annual disposition review.

The appellant had been found Not Criminally Responsible in 1997 and subsequently convicted of murder in 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in declining to conduct a placement review hearing where the appellant had not requested one prior to the scheduled hearing date, other parties were not ready to proceed, and the disposition review hearing was already significantly overdue.

The court noted that the appellant remained entitled to request a placement review hearing under section 672.69(2) of the Criminal Code.