Jill McKenzie

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

The accused has schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, both currently in remission.

The treatment team and all parties recommended continuing the conditional discharge but removing the condition requiring abstention from intoxicants, as the accused had been abstinent for five years and compliant with treatment.

The Board found the accused still posed a significant threat to public safety but agreed that the proposed disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive option.

The conditional discharge was continued with the abstention condition removed.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and failing to comply with probation.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Hospital and Attorney General opposed, recommending a continued conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.

The Board found that despite significant progress and five years of substance abstinence, the accused continued to pose a significant threat due to his schizoaffective disorder, lack of a realistic community support plan, and limited insight into his index offences and potential for violence.

The Board ordered a continuation of the conditional discharge but varied the terms to reduce reporting frequency, remove the specific residence requirement, and remove the mandatory medication condition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for robbery in 2007, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The accused has treatment-refractory schizophrenia and a history of substance use and elopement attempts.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly submitted that the current Detention Order with privileges up to community living in 24-hour supervised accommodation remained necessary and appropriate.

The Board accepted the joint submission and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, concluding that the accused's continued risk profile warranted maintaining the current Disposition without changes.

The patient, who was found not criminally responsible for arson in 2016, appeared for her annual Review Board hearing.

She sought a Conditional Discharge, while the hospital and Crown sought a continuation of her Detention Order.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the patient's schizoaffective disorder remains fragile, particularly due to an ongoing sleep disorder that can trigger psychotic symptoms and impulsive behaviour.

The Board concluded that the patient continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order, with minor modifications to travel passes and reporting requirements to ensure it remains the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats.

The accused has a lengthy history of crystal methamphetamine use, which consistently leads to a rapid deterioration in his mental health and readmissions to the hospital.

Although the accused had recently been abstinent and his antipsychotic medication was eliminated without a resurgence of psychotic symptoms, the treating psychiatrist and the hospital recommended continuing the detention order due to the high risk of relapse.

The Board agreed, finding that a detention order remains necessary and appropriate to protect public safety and ensure the hospital can rapidly readmit the accused if his condition deteriorates.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had remained stable in the community on a conditional discharge while residing with his parents.

All parties agreed that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety but supported the continuation of the conditional discharge with a transfer of his psychiatric care to a hospital closer to his residence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge and approved the transfer of care.

The court considered whether Jheidon Serieaux, convicted of first-degree murder, should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

After a bifurcated hearing, the court found that Mr. Serieaux suffered from schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offence, with persistent psychotic symptoms, and that he was not malingering.

The court preferred the evidence of Dr. Komer and Dr. Grimes over Dr. Gojer, concluding that Mr. Serieaux was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act or know that it was morally wrong.

Mr. Serieaux was found NCRMD and remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had recently been discharged to live in the community with his father.

The accused sought a conditional discharge and permission to use cannabis for pain management.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight, recent request to discontinue antipsychotic medication, and fixation on using cannabis, which historically destabilized his mental state.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition and amended the conditions to explicitly prohibit the use of cannabis.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had a positive reporting year with no readmissions, full medication adherence, and nearly two years of substance abstinence.

The Board found that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, his risk can be adequately managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions including residency at a supported accommodation and abstinence from intoxicants.

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

The accused had successfully transitioned into the community but suffered from a lack of motivation and had missed some medication doses, leading to a brief hospital readmission.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge, with the removal of a specific residence clause.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences in 2013.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had recently been discharged to live with family in the community but remained subject to a detention order.

The accused requested the removal of the prohibition on alcohol and cannabis use.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a continuation of the detention order with the same conditions, including the substance prohibition, is necessary and appropriate to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and failing to comply with probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, requested a conditional discharge.

The Hospital and the Attorney General requested that the detention order be maintained.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing cocaine use, which predictably causes precipitous mental decompensation and risk of physical aggression.

The Board concluded that a detention order with privileges to live in approved community accommodation remained the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge following a finding of not criminally responsible for harassing communications and criminal harassment.

The accused, who has schizoaffective disorder and a history of substance use, had recently relapsed into substance use after a period of stability.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the uncontradicted hospital evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The conditional discharge was maintained with the same conditions, including substance screening.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had made positive progress in hospital but remained susceptible to stress and experienced ongoing auditory hallucinations.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the uncontradicted hospital evidence that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order with privileges including indirectly supervised access to the hospital grounds and accompanied access to the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for several offences including carrying a concealed weapon and criminal harassment.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the detention order with the addition of 7-day passes.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, substance abuse, and escalating sexually inappropriate behaviour towards female staff.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the recommended modifications.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community, maintaining full-time employment, and demonstrating excellent insight and strict adherence to his long-acting antipsychotic medication.

Relying on the unanimous recommendation of the treatment team and the parties, the Board concluded that the accused's illness was in sustained remission and he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The accused was granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused sought to amend his detention order to remove the requirement for supervised accommodation and to permit the use of cannabis.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's substance-induced psychosis and borderline personality disorder require strict monitoring.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the detention order with a new condition prohibiting contact with the victim's family.

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

The accused, who has schizoaffective disorder, was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of aggravated assault.

Based on the hospital report and testimony from the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot meaningfully participate in proceedings or instruct counsel.

The Board concluded the accused is not permanently unfit but continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-refractory psychosis and a history of violence when unwell.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order.

The court sentenced Carl Richard for convictions arising from a shooting at a Hamilton bar, including discharging a firearm with intent, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and assault with a weapon.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including Richard's lengthy criminal record, the seriousness of the offence, provocation, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 10 years was imposed, less pre-trial custody and mitigation for harsh conditions, resulting in approximately 5 years and 11 months to be served.

The accused was tried without a jury on a charge of first degree murder arising from a fatal stabbing outside a men's shelter after an earlier brief physical altercation with the deceased.

The court relied on surveillance evidence, eyewitness evidence, expert DNA and pathology evidence, and extensive admissions by the accused that he returned armed with a knife, waited for the deceased to emerge, and attacked from behind to exact revenge.

The court rejected the accused's evidence that he intended only to hurt, not kill, and found that any mental health issues did not prevent formation of the requisite intent.

Applying the requirements of ss. 229 and 231(2) of the Criminal Code, the court held the killing was murder and was both planned and deliberate.

A conviction for first degree murder was entered.