Jesse DiCecca

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to significantly restrict the liberty of the accused, who had been found not criminally responsible for assault offences, and to conduct an annual review of his disposition.

The accused's mental state had deteriorated in the community following cannabis use, leading to his readmission to the hospital.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary, and the least onerous option.

The Board further concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his Detention Order, with an amendment permitting community living within the Greater Toronto Area.

The offender was found guilty of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breaches of probation after attacking his neighbor with a metal pole and a cleaver-style knife.

The court conditionally stayed the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple principle.

Weighing the offender's lengthy criminal record and the severe injuries caused against mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody and substance abuse issues, the court imposed a total sentence of five years' imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for offences including assaulting a police officer.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had made significant progress in the community but continued to lack full insight into his illness and need for support.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the hospital's recommendation, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge with amended conditions to facilitate a transition to more independent housing while maintaining necessary supervision.

In this judge-alone criminal trial, the accused admitted inflicting injuries but asserted self-defence in relation to an apartment-hallway altercation involving a metal pole and a knife.

The court applied the D.W. framework, assessed credibility and reliability in light of internal inconsistencies, substance-use evidence, criminal records, and video corroboration, and rejected the accused’s account.

The court held there was no evidentiary foundation for self-defence and, alternatively, that the accused’s own testimony failed the motive and reasonableness components under s. 34.

The court accepted key factual findings supported by surveillance and medical evidence, including repeated knife strikes and post-incident concealment conduct.

Convictions were entered for assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and two probation breaches.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition review.

The accused has schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, and continues to use cannabis despite a mandatory abstention clause.

The Board accepted the joint position that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered continued detention at the General Forensic Service at CAMH with privileges up to community living in approved accommodation.

The Board amended the reporting requirement to not less than every two weeks, but maintained the absolute abstention clause for non-medical drugs and alcohol.

Sentencing of a 52-year-old repeat offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner while on probation prohibiting contact with her, and to uttering death threats against a fellow inmate while in pre-trial custody.

The prolonged and degrading attack involved dragging the victim by her hair and stomping on her head, causing injuries requiring stitches and leaving permanent scarring.

The court weighed extensive aggravating factors including intimate partner violence, breach of multiple probation orders, a 125-conviction criminal record spanning 36 years, and the severity of the assault against mitigating factors of guilty pleas, rehabilitative programming in custody, and harsh conditions of incarceration at the Toronto South Detention Centre including frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for multiple sexual assaults and other offences.

At the initial Ontario Review Board disposition hearing, all parties agreed the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The hospital and Crown recommended a Detention Order to the Forensic Service, while the accused sought placement in a General Forensic Unit.

Relying on the attending psychiatrist's evidence that the accused's symptoms were well controlled and his risk could be managed, the Board ordered detention in a General Forensic Unit with privileges up to community living.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault and related charges.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had made progress but recently struggled with substance use and declined a community housing placement.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to risks of medication non-compliance and substance use if unsupervised.

The Board ordered the continuation of the accused's detention at the hospital with privileges.

In a pretrial Crown application, the court considered whether a young complainant's videotaped statement in a sexual offence prosecution could be admitted for its truth and stand in place of in-court testimony.

Applying the principled hearsay approach, the court held that threshold reliability was established through the timing and content of the statement, the child's responses, surveillance evidence, and DNA evidence.

The application nevertheless failed because the Crown did not provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation to establish necessity on the basis of psychological unavailability, as the parents' evidence and a brief doctor's letter did not demonstrate a real possibility of psychological trauma from testifying.

The application was dismissed, without prejudice to renewal if additional evidence became available before trial.

The accused was charged with first degree murder following the discovery of the victim's body, which had been severely beaten and bound with coaxial cable.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video showing the accused as the last person with the victim, DNA evidence on the bindings, a bloody palm print, and after-the-fact conduct.

The accused provided an exculpatory statement to police, which the court rejected as fabricated.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator, that he had the requisite intent for murder despite evidence of intoxication, and that the murder occurred during an unlawful confinement.

The accused was found guilty of first degree murder.

The offender was convicted of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after 6.79 grams of a fentanyl/heroin mix was found on his person.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence sought time served of 3.5 years.

The court considered the offender's difficult background, schizophrenia, and status as an addict trafficker, alongside the highly dangerous nature of fentanyl.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years (credited as time served) followed by 2 years of probation with strict conditions to address his mental health and addiction issues.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences following the execution of a search warrant at his apartment.

He admitted to possessing 6.79 grams of fentanyl found on his person, but denied possessing other drugs and a restricted firearm found in the apartment.

A defence witness testified that the apartment drugs and firearm belonged to her and that she had hidden them there without the accused's knowledge.

The court found the accused guilty of possessing the fentanyl on his person for the purpose of trafficking, citing the quantity and indicia of trafficking.

However, applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the defence witness's testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding the items found in the apartment, resulting in acquittals on the remaining charges.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and mischief arising from an alleged assault by an intimate partner.

The case turned primarily on the complainant's credibility and on the admissibility of post-incident text messages sent by the complainant to the accused.

After a mid-trial voir dire, the court held the texts did not contain personal information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and were therefore not 'records' under s. 278.1 requiring a s. 278.93 application.

Although the court found the complainant's account plausible and likely true, her unexplained lack of forthrightness about those communications raised a reasonable doubt that was not cured by the remaining evidence.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The Ontario Review Board recommended an inquiry to determine if criminal proceedings against Ms. McDonald, who was found unfit to stand trial for arson, should be stayed.

Following a joint recommendation from counsel and an assessment confirming permanent unfitness and low public threat, the court ordered a stay of proceedings.

The decision considered the seriousness of the offence, the salutary effects of the stay (focus on treatment, judicial resource savings), and public confidence in the administration of justice, concluding that reasonable, well-informed persons would not expect indefinite proceedings for a permanently unfit individual.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act in a public place and failing to comply with a probation order.

The Crown alleged the defendant exposed his penis and masturbated inside and outside a coffee shop, and that he breached his probation by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The court found the defendant not guilty of the indecent act charge due to insufficient evidence of harm or substantial risk of harm as required under the harm-based test established in R. v. Labaye.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of failing to comply with the probation order, as his disruptive behaviour in the coffee shop constituted a clear breach of the peace.

The applicant sought an order in the nature of certiorari to quash a bail revocation order made by an Ontario Court of Justice judge during a fitness to stand trial hearing.

The Superior Court examined whether the lower court judge had jurisdiction under s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to revoke bail on her own motion, without cause being shown, and whether a fitness hearing constituted a "trial" for the purposes of that section.

The court found that the lower court judge lacked jurisdiction, as s. 523(2)(a) applies only to a trial judge presiding over the trial proper, and inherent jurisdiction could not be used to circumvent statutory limitations on liberty rights.

The defendant, CH, was found guilty of assault and breach of a probation order, marking his third conviction for domestic assault against the same complainant.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence for assault and a consecutive 6 months for breach of probation, plus 3 years' probation.

The defence requested a 90-day concurrent 30-day custodial period.

The court considered aggravating factors including the repeated and escalating nature of the domestic violence, the complainant's psychological vulnerability, and the defendant's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's diagnosed schizophrenia and significant pre-trial custody spent in a medical facility.

The court sentenced CH to 12 months in custody followed by 2 years' probation.

Due to credit for 21 months and 6 days of pre-trial custody, the custodial portion was deemed served, and CH was to begin probation immediately.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a 3-year no-contact order with the complainant.

The Crown applied for a treatment order under s. 672.58 of the Criminal Code after the accused, who suffered from schizophrenia, was found unfit to stand trial.

The judge declined to make the order because the accused did not consent to treatment, preferring the civil provincial regime.

The Crown sought certiorari to quash the decision.

The Superior Court found that while the judge erred in law by allowing the accused's lack of consent to override the statutory purpose of the treatment order, the error was not jurisdictional.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.