Janice Elaine Blackburn

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant risk to the public.

While the appellant argued that a treatment impasse had been reached requiring an alternative assessment, this request was not made before the Board.

The appeal was dismissed, but the Court encouraged the Board to consider exercising its jurisdiction to address the treatment impasse at the upcoming annual review.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of her appeal.

The court was advised that she had gone absent without leave from the hospital and was deemed discharged under the Mental Health Act.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a patient in a secure forensic unit, filed multiple human rights applications alleging discrimination.

During a telephone hearing to address specific allegations, including a claim that a doctor discriminatorily greeted him with 'hello ladies', the applicant engaged in highly disruptive, abusive, and disrespectful behaviour, repeatedly yelling at the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found the doctor's comment did not constitute discrimination.

Furthermore, due to the applicant's refusal to comply with directions and his abusive conduct, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining applications as an abuse of process, finding it impossible to conduct a fair hearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board following a finding that she was not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer.

The Board ordered her detained in a Secure Forensic Unit due to active, untreated persecutory delusions and a significant threat to public safety.

On appeal, the appellant and amicus curiae argued the Board relied on inadmissible hearsay and failed to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board is entitled to consider hearsay evidence such as police occurrence reports, and that the hybrid detention order was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous option given the appellant's refusal of treatment and lack of insight.

The applicant filed a request to re-activate his deferred human rights application more than 14 months past the 60-day time limit following the conclusion of his related Court of Appeal proceeding.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address the delay.

Finding that the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the significant delay and that the respondents could suffer prejudice, the Tribunal declined to extend the time limit and dismissed the request to re-activate, thereby dismissing the application.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board Chair's conduct raised a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the Board failed to recognize a treatment impasse with the hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the high burden for a bias claim was not met despite some disrespectful comments by the Chair.

The Court also found no treatment impasse, noting the appellant's refusal to engage with the hospital treatment team.

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.

Appeal from two Consent and Capacity Board decisions confirming involuntary status and treatment incapacity for a psychiatric patient.

The court held the involuntary admission appeal was moot after the appellant's discharge under a Community Treatment Order and declined to exercise discretion to hear it.

On the treatment incapacity appeal, the court applied the s. 4 Health Care Consent Act, 1996 test and found the Board's conclusion on the first branch was unreasonable, but upheld the second branch for antipsychotic and mood stabilizing treatment.

The appeal succeeded only in relation to benzodiazepines and related side effect medication and lab tests because the evidentiary record was insufficient, and that issue was remitted to the Board for re-hearing.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and appealed a hybrid detention disposition made by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in finding he posed a significant risk to public safety and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of significant risk was supported by the evidence, including the unanimous opinion of the treatment team.

The Court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding the late delivery of a hospital report and alleged bias.

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 appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from Ontario Shores to Waypoint.

The appellant conceded he represented a significant threat to public safety and required a custodial order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to transfer the appellant was reasonable, based on the correct legal test, and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that revoked his transfer to a less secure hospital and maintained him at a secure facility.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's surprise attack on a co-patient, which changed his risk profile.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion reasonably supported the revocation and that maintaining the appellant at the secure facility was the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

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.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found he posed a significant threat to public safety and denied him an absolute discharge.

The hospital and treatment team supported an absolute discharge, noting that while the appellant suffered from schizophrenia, he was not violent and could be managed under the civil mental health system.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it relied on speculative correlations between drug use, mental illness symptoms, and risk to the public, while ignoring the unique circumstances of the index offence and the appellant's lack of violent history.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was substituted.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board that granted him a conditional discharge, arguing he should have received an absolute discharge.

The appellant contended the Board erred in finding he represented a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's unanimous decision, which relied on evidence that the appellant would pose a significant risk without the control of a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the appellant's efforts to improve his condition but dismissed the appeal as moot because the Board had since issued a later disposition.

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 appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the disposition was unreasonable, that his explanations for refusing medication were ignored, and that the Board lost jurisdiction by granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable given the appellant's significant risk, and holding that any potential loss of jurisdiction was cured by section 672.53 of the Criminal Code.

The moving party, a mental health centre, brought a motion to suspend a placement decision of the Ontario Review Board pending appeal.

The respondent, a dual status offender, was ordered by the Board to be transferred from a federal penitentiary to the mental health centre.

The moving party argued that the transfer posed a safety risk and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the test for suspending a placement decision is whether the moving party has shown a compelling reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's decision concerning the mental condition of the accused.

The moving party failed to meet this heavy burden.