Jennifer Lynne Armenise

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition hearing.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing his detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, while his counsel requested an independent assessment, arguing a treatment impasse had been reached due to his prolonged seclusion.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-resistant schizophrenia, command hallucinations, and history of violence.

The Board concluded there was no treatment impasse, as the hospital continued to explore medication optimization, and ordered the continuation of the existing detention disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, indecent acts, and assault causing bodily harm.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety but had made sufficient progress to warrant a transfer from a high secure to a medium secure facility.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused's risk could be managed at a medium secure hospital.

The Board ordered the accused's detention at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton with escorted hospital and grounds privileges.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction for careless storage of a firearm, arguing the trial judge applied a standard of perfection.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence of an absolute discharge, arguing it was demonstrably unfit and that the trial judge improperly deferred to police disciplinary proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals.

The court found the trial judge correctly applied the 'marked departure' standard to the appellant's storage of his service weapon in an unlocked plastic drawer.

On sentence, while noting the absolute discharge was extremely lenient, the court held it was not demonstrably unfit given the collateral consequences the appellant faced under the Police Services Act.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to significantly restrict the accused's liberty by placing him in seclusion.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of violence, was placed in seclusion after becoming hostile, unresponsive to staff direction, and refusing his antipsychotic medication.

The Board applied the framework from Regina v. M.L.C. and found that both the initial placement in seclusion and the ongoing restriction of liberty were warranted, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available to safely manage his risk of harm to others.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to correct an oversight in the accused's previous disposition.

The accused had been found unfit to stand trial and was ordered transferred to a different hospital.

The previous disposition erroneously awarded him indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, which do not exist at that facility.

On consent of all parties, the Board ordered the deletion of the erroneous paragraph, leaving the rest of the disposition intact.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and failing to comply with probation.

At his initial appearance before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and Crown took the position that he remained unfit, while his counsel took no position.

The Board observed the accused's florid presentation and constant interruptions during the hearing.

Relying on the hospital's reports and the accused's presentation, the Board concluded that he remains unable to instruct counsel or participate in a trial, and ordered a disposition in accordance with the hospital's recommendations.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused's liberty had been restricted following his placement in seclusion.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder, had been transferred to a high-secure forensic program after an unprovoked attack on his attending psychiatrist.

The Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary for public safety, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available in the circumstances.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences including robbery and dangerous driving.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, continued to experience psychotic symptoms and violent thoughts, and remained resistant to medication.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital's psychiatrist that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order at the high secure forensic program, with a recommendation for transfer to the Institute of Philippe-Pinel in Quebec.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused sought a transfer to a less secure hospital.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused requires a longer period of stability, engagement in therapeutic programs, and better management of substance use issues before a transfer can be considered.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant risk to public safety and ordered no change to the current disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other offences.

The accused, who has schizophrenia, experienced a period of seclusion after an unprovoked incident of spitting on co-patients.

The Board applied the Campbell framework and found that the significant increase in the restriction of his liberty was necessary and appropriate.

Accepting the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his current disposition at the high-secure forensic hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, continues to experience auditory hallucinations but has remained stable within the structured hospital environment.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current disposition, detaining the accused at the hospital with escorted grounds privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for forcible entry, mischief, and assaulting a peace officer.

The accused has schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders.

Despite maintaining community housing, the accused recently relapsed into alcohol and cocaine use, requiring hospital readmission.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering a threat to damage property.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, experiences significant anxiety regarding community living and fears re-offending.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital's doctor that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition with existing conditions and a 24-month review period, encouraging the hospital to provide spiritual support and relapse prevention programming.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused sought a transfer to a less secure facility.

The treating psychiatrist opposed the transfer, citing the recency of the accused's improvements on new medication and the need for ongoing support.

The Board found that the accused had shown remarkable progress and, given the lengthy waitlist for a transfer, ordered the transfer to CAMH with the current conditions remaining in place.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and antisocial personality disorder, and has a history of medication non-compliance and aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the accused's detention at the hospital with no change to the terms and conditions of his disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and other offences.

The accused has a complex psychiatric profile, including schizoaffective disorder and a history of polysubstance abuse, and recently assaulted staff while in treatment.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care with appropriate privileges and conditions to facilitate his rehabilitation and manage his risk.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, had been compliant with treatment and exhibited positive behaviour at the high-secure forensic hospital.

However, given the extreme violence of the index offence and his history of severe relapses when untreated, the Board found he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that his detention order remain in place without changes to ensure continued monitoring and treatment.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused suffers from autism spectrum disorder and other conditions, and has a history of significant behavioural issues requiring hospital detention.

Based on the joint position of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current disposition detaining the accused at the hospital, with the modification that reviews will now be held annually rather than every two years.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and robbery and designated as a high-risk accused.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention order, and the accused did not contest his high-risk designation at this time.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to treatment refractory schizophrenia and a risk of decompensation if untreated.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on assault charges.

The accused suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and remains in seclusion due to unpredictable and aggressive behaviour.

Applying the tests from Taylor and Bharwani, the Board accepted uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains unable to meaningfully participate in a trial or instruct counsel.

The Board found the accused unfit to stand trial, but not permanently so, and ordered the continuation of his detention at the high-secure forensic hospital as he remains a significant threat to public safety.