Joaquin David Canton

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for robbery, theft of a motor vehicle, and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder in remission, had been living in supportive housing and complying with his treatment.

The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, while the Crown opposed it.

Relying on the expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused's insight had improved and that protective factors, including a Community Treatment Order and an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team, mitigated his risk.

The Board concluded the accused no longer represented a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, who has a history of schizophrenia exacerbated by cannabis use, had been detained at CAMH.

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

However, noting his clinical stability on a new medication regimen and his successful use of hospital passes, the Board ordered the continuation of his detention disposition with expanded privileges, including access to the Greater Toronto Area and the ability to live in approved supportive housing in the community.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder in 2004, suffers from schizophrenia and has a history of medication non-adherence and substance use.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight and likelihood of decompensation without supervision.

The Board ordered that the current detention disposition at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health continue unchanged.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, forcible entry, and mischief.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had recently relapsed into cannabis use, resulting in a criminal conviction for driving offences.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order, with the addition of international travel privileges to allow the accused to travel with his family, noting family support as a crucial protective factor.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for manslaughter.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had recently experienced mental state decompensations requiring readmission to the hospital.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the existing disposition, which detains the accused at the hospital with privileges to live in approved supervised community accommodation, continue in force without change.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and mischief.

Based on a joint submission and uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder and is permanently unfit to stand trial.

Given his secure placement in a long-term care facility and ongoing treatment, the Board concluded he no longer poses a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the accused returned to court for an inquiry into whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

The Crown sought to declare the defendant a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence.

The defendant opposed, arguing the criteria for dangerous offender were not met, and sought a long-term offender designation instead.

The court found that while the defendant had committed serious personal injury offences and exhibited a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable." The court designated the defendant a long-term offender under s. 753.1(1) of the Criminal Code, imposing a total sentence of nine years imprisonment (with credit for time served, leaving 113 days remaining) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused, on trial for multiple offences including sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement, brought a motion for a directed verdict on three counts at the close of the Crown's case.

The court applied the Sheppard test to determine if there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury could convict.

The court found no evidence supporting the sexual intent or use of a weapon during the specific acts alleged in Counts 1 and 2, amending them to lesser included offences.

However, the court found sufficient evidence of coercive restraint to leave the unlawful confinement charge (Count 5) to the jury.

The motion was granted in part.

The accused, charged with firearm possession offences, brought a Charter application challenging an investigative detention and search based on a confidential-source tip describing a group of Black males at a large apartment building, one allegedly armed.

The court held that the accused was detained from the moment an officer physically stopped him and told him to stop, and that the available tip information was too generalized and insufficiently particularized to amount to reasonable suspicion.

Because the detention was arbitrary, the incidental search was unreasonable, and the police also breached the accused’s right to counsel both by failing to advise immediately and by eliciting a statement after he requested duty counsel.

Applying the Grant s. 24(2) framework, the court found the first two factors strongly favoured exclusion and ordered the firearm, ammunition, and statement excluded.

The applicant, S.B., sought a s. 525 bail review for serious charges including attempt murder and firearm offences, having been in custody for over 90 days without a bail hearing.

The defence proposed a release plan involving residential and back-up sureties, and electronic monitoring, citing COVID-19 risks and potential trial delays.

The Crown opposed, citing S.B.'s extensive criminal record, including 14 breach-type offences and a manslaughter conviction, and the overwhelming evidence against him.

The court found the proposed supervision plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of S.B. reoffending and determined that his continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the acknowledged risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the possibility of trial delays.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after driving approximately 50 meters while intoxicated.

The Crown conceded that the accused was impaired and had driven the vehicle.

The sole issue was whether the defence of necessity was available.

The accused testified that he was assaulted by a group of hostile males, one of whom brandished a knife, and that he drove to escape the imminent peril.

The court found that all three elements of the necessity defence were satisfied: there was clear and imminent peril, no reasonable legal alternative existed, and the harm inflicted was proportionate to the harm avoided.

The accused was acquitted.