Jessica R. Szabo

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for several violent offences.

The hospital, Attorney-General, and the accused jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Board found that while the accused has made progress in maintaining sobriety and adhering to his medication regimen, he requires further assessment of his ability to cope with independent living.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and mischief.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and continues to experience fixed grandiose delusions and a lack of insight into his illness.

The treatment team recommended a Detention Order with community living privileges, noting the accused's reluctance to use passes or engage in programming.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered a Detention Order with the conditions proposed by the hospital, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assaulting a peace officer, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The accused has been living in the community on a conditional discharge, maintaining abstinence from cannabis, and complying with his treatment regimen for schizophrenia.

All parties agreed that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but recommended removing the abstinence and consent to treatment clauses from his disposition to test his independence.

The Board accepted the joint submission, maintaining the conditional discharge while removing the specified clauses to support the accused's pathway toward an absolute discharge.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for pushing a victim onto subway tracks, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for her annual hearing.

The hospital and the accused sought to remove a restriction preventing her from accessing subway platforms unaccompanied, which the Crown opposed.

The Board found that while she remains a significant threat to public safety, her condition has stabilized with medication and abstinence from substances.

The Board accepted the hospital's cautious, iterative approach to reintegration and removed the subway restriction, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty after she was readmitted to the hospital following a positive urine drug screen for amphetamines.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly agreed that the initial restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was significant, necessary, and appropriate for public safety, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on two counts of second-degree murder and one count of aggravated assault.

At his initial Disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the Board found that he remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, limited insight into his substance use disorders, and a history of severe violence.

The Board ordered his detention at a secure forensic hospital.

While the hospital recommended indirectly supervised community passes, the Board restricted his privileges to accompanied passes only, finding that indirectly supervised passes were premature given his recent admission and need for further stabilization and assessment.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing two family members while experiencing persecutory delusions.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered expert psychiatric evidence indicating the accused's ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, impulsivity, and sexually disinhibited behaviour.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

A Detention Order at the hospital was issued, as community living was deemed premature while his medication regimen is being optimized.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for violent offences.

The accused had made significant progress over the past five years, remaining stable, medication-compliant, and substance-free while living in the community.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence and mental illness.

However, considering his progress, the Board ordered a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the conditional discharge of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge but removing the abstinence and non-attendance clauses to allow the treatment team to monitor the accused's return to social alcohol use.

The accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, severe alcohol use disorder, and limited insight into how alcohol could destabilize his mental state.

The Board ordered a continuation of the conditional discharge with the amended terms recommended by the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempt murder and designated as a high risk accused.

The Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to residual schizophrenia symptoms and cannabis use disorder.

However, noting his clinical progress, the Board ordered continued detention at Ontario Shores but granted indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, finding that s. 672.64(3) of the Criminal Code does not preclude such privileges for a high risk accused.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's Detention Disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, has diagnoses of schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.

Based on the hospital report, expert testimony, and a joint submission from the parties, the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Disposition at the Secure Forensic Unit, with discretion to transfer to a General Forensic Unit as his condition improves.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for armed robbery and related offences.

The hospital and the Crown jointly recommended a conditional discharge, noting the accused's progress, medication adherence, and transition to a less supervised setting, while maintaining that he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation and ordered a conditional discharge, finding that public safety would not be compromised.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault offences and suffers from schizophrenia, sought an absolute discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge with added substance prohibitions, citing a recent incident where the accused relapsed into alcohol use, eloped, and became non-compliant with his medication.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, as his alcohol use is integrally tied to medication non-compliance and elevated risk of harm.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the recommended additional terms.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused has diagnoses of treatment-resistant schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing auditory hallucinations and recent substance use.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's Disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder with Catatonic Features, had transitioned well to community living and remained medication compliant.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence and risk of decompensation if non-compliant with medication.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with strict conditions, including a residence requirement, travel restrictions, and a treatment condition, to safely manage his risk in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of assault against his mother.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and an intellectual disability.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered that the accused be detained in the hospital's Forensic Program, with privileges and conditions including a prohibition on attending his mother's residence and a requirement that any community living privilege be in supervised accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for arson and other offences.

The hospital, Crown, and accused jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board found that the accused had maintained abstinence from substances, adhered to medication, and established a strong framework of community support.

Concluding that any remaining behavioural issues did not constitute a real risk of serious harm, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on charges of sexual assault, forcible confinement, and identity fraud.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine the appropriate disposition.

The hospital and Crown argued the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-resistant bipolar disorder and rapid decompensation, seeking a conditional discharge.

The accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence, finding the accused posed a significant threat to public safety, and ordered a conditional discharge with terms proposed by the hospital, excluding a no-contact order.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for communicating safeguarded information about a nuclear power plant to a foreign entity or terrorist group during a manic episode.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, while the Attorney General sought a conditional discharge.

The majority of the Board found that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, noting his current stability, medication compliance, abstinence from substances, and strong family support.

The accused was granted an absolute discharge.

A dissenting member would have ordered a conditional discharge due to concerns about insight and historical medication non-compliance.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit and retaining an electronics supervision clause.

The appellant argued the disposition was not the least onerous and restrictive option and that the Board improperly rejected a joint submission to remove the electronics clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the Board's decisions reasonable given the appellant's recent elopements and worsening auditory hallucinations.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to reinstate clauses for indirectly supervised and accompanied privileges, which the Board had mistakenly removed.