Jean Buie

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the Board's decision to be reasonable and saw no reason to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board misunderstood the joint submission of the parties and inadvertently imposed a more restrictive condition than intended.

The appeal was allowed to correct the error by substituting the jointly submitted condition regarding community accommodations.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The parties agreed that the Review Board's decision had no current effect or consequence for the appellant, as it was effectively erased by a subsequent decision of Trotter J. The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 15, 2010.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was moot.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order that required him to live in 'supervised accommodation' if living in the community.

The Court of Appeal found the Board did not act unreasonably in imposing a detention order, but erred in unilaterally imposing the 'supervised accommodation' term without allowing submissions on its meaning, need, or availability.

The appeal was allowed to vary the order, removing the 'supervised accommodation' requirement but directing that the appellant not reside with his father.

The appellant appealed from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a minimum security unit.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in failing to grant him an absolute or conditional discharge, asserting he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not improperly shift the burden of proof and that its conclusion regarding the appellant's threat to public safety was reasonable based on the expert evidence.

The Court also held that a conditional discharge was not realistic given the appellant's failure to comply with hospital conditions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

Prior to the appeal being heard, the Board held another hearing resulting in a new disposition that increased the restrictions on the appellant's liberty.

Due to delays in bringing the initial appeal and the intention to appeal the new disposition, the Court of Appeal adjourned the current appeal to be heard together with the proposed appeal of the new disposition, and appointed amicus curiae to assist the self-represented appellant.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board, seeking a transfer to another part of the facility to be treated by a different team of doctors due to an alleged treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to find a treatment impasse was reasonable as the current treatment team had an ongoing plan involving different medication strategies.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying him an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the hospital report and the treating psychiatrist's testimony provided a reasonable basis for the Board to conclude that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, particularly to the victim of the index offence and his own family.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board failed to apply the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code when it denied a community living condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was aware of and applied the correct test.

The Court held that the evidence, including the appellant's continuing substance abuse and personality disorder, amply supported the Board's conclusion that a community placement condition did not meet the mandated test.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter issues raised were bound by previous decisions and that the Board's decision was reasonable on the record.

The Court also held that the Board did not err by failing to initiate its own inquiries beyond the material placed before it.

The appellant appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) and a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the NCR finding, holding that the appellant's guilty plea was unequivocal and there was no dispute regarding fitness.

The appeal from the Board's order was dismissed as moot because the appellant was scheduled to be moved to another facility.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board misunderstood the terms of a joint recommendation regarding his community and grounds supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record did not support the appellant's contention and that the Board gave careful reasons for adding restrictions to his privileges.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a minimum secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by admitting a police summary of his prior criminal activity and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board has wide latitude to receive hearsay evidence and did not rely heavily on the summary.

The Court also held the disposition was reasonable, supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, and represented the least onerous restriction consistent with public protection.