Jean Richer

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon, was subject to an annual review hearing by the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought to maintain his Detention Order, citing his treatment-resistant schizophrenia and the need for close monitoring following a recent move.

The Board found that while the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, his risk could be adequately managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge, noting his stable housing, consistent medication adherence, and history of voluntary return to the hospital when required.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on two counts of assaulting peace officers.

The trial judge had allowed the defence to reopen its case twice and found that the respondent was a "licensee" with a right to occupy his mother's home, meaning the police were not acting in the execution of their duties when attempting to evict him.

The trial judge also found that the force used by the respondent in self-defence was not excessive.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's decision on the reopening of the case, the respondent's status as a licensee, and the reasonableness of his self-defence, thus dismissing the appeal.

The respondent's request for compensation for delays was also dismissed.

The appellant, a francophone, was charged alongside anglophone co-accused.

A bilingual preliminary inquiry was held.

The Crown assigned unilingual anglophone prosecutors, provided English-only disclosure and notices, and the court refused to provide a bilingual court reporter or issue interlocutory judgments in French.

The certiorari judge found language rights violations but denied a remedy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding systemic failure by the Crown and the preliminary inquiry judge to respect the equality of official languages.

The committal for trial was quashed and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for a 2007 sexual assault and appealed his annual review by the Ontario Review Board, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In parallel proceedings, the Superior Court overturned the NCR verdict and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal as the bias issue was highly fact-specific.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing his detention in a hospital.

The appellant argued he did not suffer from a mental illness and that the Board's reasons were insufficient to establish he posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of mental illness but agreed the Board's reasons were insufficient, particularly regarding its reliance on uncorroborated hearsay evidence and its failure to explain why the threat was deemed 'significant' despite contrary psychiatric evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The respondent was acquitted of carrying a concealed weapon after police found a gas-powered pellet gun in his waistband.

The trial judge and summary conviction appeal court held that a pellet gun is only a weapon if there is evidence it was used or intended to be used for a harmful purpose.

The Crown sought leave to appeal, arguing a pellet gun is a firearm and therefore a weapon regardless of intent.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding it was bound by its previous decision in McManus, which held that a pellet gun is not a weapon unless used or intended for a dangerous purpose.

The appellant, a young offender, appealed a 90-day sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to credit 101 days of pre-trial custody served for separate robbery charges that were later withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge erred in law by not considering the pre-trial custody.

The 90-day sentence was set aside, as the pre-trial custody credit would have fully absorbed it.