3 total
The Court affirmed the Review Board's conditional discharge, finding no abdication of its inquisitorial role.
The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge order.
The Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, rejecting his treating physician's low-risk assessment due to insufficient factual grounding and limited self-reports.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Board did not abdicate its inquisitorial role and its decision was reasonable and supported by the record.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's decision to transfer an NCR patient to a high-secure facility, finding no error in the assessment of his needs and risk.
The appellant appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to the High Secure Forensic Program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.
The appellant argued the transfer was not the least onerous or restrictive alternative and that the Board erred by failing to address a "treatment impasse" particularly concerning his aversion to clozapine.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the ORB's conclusion that the transfer was "necessary and appropriate" to manage public safety risk and meet the appellant's needs.
The court also found no evidence of a treatment impasse before the Board that would warrant intervention.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue the detention of an NCR accused.
An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention of an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused at a forensic psychiatric hospital with community living privileges.
The appellant sought a conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the detention order remained necessary and appropriate given the appellant's ongoing mental health and substance use issues, poor insight into her condition, vulnerability to relapse, and recent threatening behaviour.
The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the Board failed to consider relevant factors including her sobriety, age-related reduction in violence risk, negative effects of hospitalization, and commitment to treatment compliance.