Jessica R. Szabo

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had recently been non-compliant with his medication, requiring two hospital admissions to stabilize his mental state.

He demonstrated poor insight into his illness and the index offences, believing his condition could be treated with yoga and non-pharmacological means.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continuation of his Detention Disposition at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a Restriction of Liberty hearing after the accused, who had been living in the community, was readmitted to the hospital due to severe sleep disruption and increased paranoid beliefs.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported the readmission as the least onerous and least restrictive decision.

The accused's counsel did not contest the initial readmission but raised concerns about the level of passes granted.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the return to hospital was warranted and that the ongoing inpatient stay remained the least onerous and least restrictive decision available.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the conditional discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, the removal of alcohol and cannabis prohibitions from his conditions.

The hospital and Attorney General argued the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found that the accused's schizophrenia, lack of insight, and substance use disorders made him a significant threat, noting recent behavioral deterioration and attempts to evade substance detection.

The majority maintained the conditional discharge with strict prohibitions on alcohol and cannabis, while a minority dissented regarding the alcohol prohibition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault in 2006, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his disposition.

The hospital and the Crown jointly recommended a Conditional Discharge, noting his successful transition to community living, medication compliance, and remission of his schizophrenia.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation, finding that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, the threat can be managed in the community with conditions.

A Conditional Discharge was ordered.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, did not attend the hearing.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused's counsel jointly recommended continuing the existing Detention Order.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to her mental health history, index offences, and a prior arson conviction.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the exact terms set out in the previous year's disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempt murder and designated a high risk accused, appeared for an annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and Crown jointly submitted that the current disposition be maintained, with an added 200-metre perimeter restriction from the parents' home and workplace.

The accused's counsel agreed but requested the Board refer the high risk accused designation to the Superior Court for review.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia and lack of full insight.

The Board declined to refer the high risk accused designation for review, concluding there was not a substantial likelihood that the accused would not use violence endangering others.

The accused was found not criminally responsible in 2018 for uttering death threats and was subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition.

At his annual review, the hospital, the accused, and the Attorney General jointly submitted that he no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting that the accused's schizophrenia had been in remission since 2019, he was compliant with treatment, and he had strong family and community support.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

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

The accused is currently subject to a conditional discharge and faces a deportation order due to a prior conviction, which he is appealing.

The hospital and parties jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to stressors related to his immigration status, lack of health coverage, and need for psychiatric follow-up.

The Board accepted the joint submission to continue the conditional discharge but declined to order a six-month review, finding it more appropriate for the parties to apply for an early hearing once the accused's appeal and immigration status are resolved.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition review.

He has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board found that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing auditory hallucinations, limited insight, and the severity of his index offence.

The Board ordered a continuation of his Detention Disposition at the Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, noting his positive progress but emphasizing the need for a gradual and cautious increase in privileges.

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

The accused suffers from Treatment Resistant Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder, and has a history of medication non-compliance and substance use while in the hospital.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her lack of insight and risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition at the hospital, with the addition of a community living clause to motivate the accused and allow the clinical team to seek 24-hour supervised housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson.

The accused, who has schizophrenia, had been residing in supportive housing and remaining compliant with medication.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight into his illness and the impact of substance use.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions, including that he reside in approved housing and have no contact with the victims.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and robbery.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders, had his liberty restricted after relapsing on crack cocaine and exhibiting erratic behaviour in the community.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, particularly when using substances.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition at the hospital and found the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, has a diagnosis of Schizophrenia and continues to experience auditory hallucinations.

Following two recent elopements from the hospital and ongoing behavioural issues, the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition within a Secure Forensic Unit and declined to remove the condition requiring supervision of the accused's electronic devices.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences.

The accused has schizoaffective disorder and continues to experience auditory command hallucinations.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his chronic, treatment-resistant mental illness and poor insight.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores, with privileges up to living in the community in supervised accommodation, as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage his risk.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a forensic mental health facility with community privileges, rather than granting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Board denied the conditional discharge due to public safety concerns, emphasizing the need for swift intervention in case of mental state decompensation, despite the appellant's recent stability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court deferred to the Board's expert opinion, supported by the appellant's psychiatrist, that a detention order was necessary to ensure public protection by allowing intervention before the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act were met, which conditional discharge mechanisms might not adequately provide.

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 appellant, an Indigenous individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a Gladue Report for his next annual review.

The Board had deemed the report premature, suggesting it would be more beneficial after further treatment stability.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's refusal unreasonable, emphasizing its duty to gather all relevant evidence, including Gladue information, for Indigenous NCR accused persons.

The court reiterated that Gladue principles apply to Board proceedings and require a distinct analytical approach.

The appeal was allowed, and the Board was ordered to ensure a Gladue Report is prepared before the appellant's next hearing.

The appellant, OHIP, appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board which granted the respondent funding for a vaginoplasty without penectomy in Texas.

OHIP argued the procedure was not a specifically listed insured service and was experimental.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding that the plain reading of the Schedule of Benefits lists vaginoplasty and penectomy as separate procedures, and that interpreting the schedule to require a penectomy would be inconsistent with the WPATH Standards of Care and Charter values.

The court also declined to allow OHIP to raise a new argument on appeal regarding out-of-country funding criteria.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that directed his transfer from Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The ORB's decision was based on the recommendation of the appellant's treating psychiatrist, who believed CAMH's sexual behaviour clinic was necessary to address the appellant's hypersexuality and concerning behaviours.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, as established in R. v. Owen, and found that the ORB's analysis and conclusion were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

M.F. appealed a decision affirming his incapacity to make treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic medication.

The Consent and Capacity Board and the Superior Court of Justice had previously confirmed Dr. Milovic's finding of incapacity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly weighed the evidence, including the medical opinion that M.F.'s psychosis was due to schizophrenia, not drug-induced psychosis, despite arguments about cannabis use.