Jonathan Fernandes

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault against his wife and daughter.

The Crown brought two applications: one for the admission of uncharged prior discreditable conduct towards both complainants, and a second for the application of the similar fact rule to allow evidence of each count to apply to other counts.

The court granted the first application, admitting prior discreditable conduct for each complainant.

The second application was granted in part, allowing similar fact evidence for counts pertaining to the same complainant but denying its use between different complainants due to lack of sufficient similarity.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 29, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for theft, challenged the Board's decision to continue his detention with specified community privileges.

The appellant conceded he remained a significant risk to the community but sought 72-hour passes rather than the 48-hour passes recommended by the Hospital.

The Board found the appellant remained a significant threat and imposed a detention order with the Hospital's recommended privileges.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board misapprehended evidence regarding his diagnosis and his insight into his illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's reasoning or findings.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated May 1, 2017, which ordered her detained at the General Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, though with discretion for the person in charge to permit community living.

The appellant challenged the Board's constitution, arguing the Chairperson did not meet statutory qualification requirements, and contested the Board's use of victim impact statements and its finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no improper constitution of the Board, no improper use of victim impact statements, and that the Board's findings were supported by evidence and joint counsel recommendation.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that detained him at the Secure Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences with restricted privileges.

The appellant advanced two grounds of appeal: that the Board's finding of significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, and that the Board erred in law by failing to apply section 14 of the Evidence Act regarding corroboration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding ample evidence supported the significant threat threshold and that section 14 of the Evidence Act does not apply to Review Board proceedings as they fall under federal jurisdiction.

The appellant's collateral Charter application regarding medication was also dismissed as not cognizable on appeal.

The appellant, a 54-year-old man with schizophrenia and a history of violence and harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to order his continued detention at a forensic psychiatric facility rather than grant a conditional discharge.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible in 2008 and lived in the community until December 2015, when he decompensated after stopping his antipsychotic medication.

The Board found he posed a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight into his mental illness, likelihood of discontinuing medication if discharged, and history of assaultive behavior.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it was the least onerous and least restrictive alternative available.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention of a dual-status offender at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2010 for assault on a minor, was convicted in 2015 of assault causing bodily harm on a nurse at a secure forensic hospital and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and three years' probation.

The Board ordered the appellant serve the remainder of his sentence in a hospital at Waypoint.

The appellant challenged the disposition on multiple grounds, including failure to require testimony from the CECC psychiatrist, failure to require testimony from the Minister, failure to hold a review hearing as soon as practicable, presumption of illness rather than wellness, errors of fact, and failure to explain why detention at Waypoint was the least restrictive disposition.

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

The appellant, Brian Alta, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed his involuntary status at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under section 20(5) of the Mental Health Act.

The Board found that Alta suffered from a mental disorder likely to result in serious physical impairment unless he remained in custody, and that he was not suitable for voluntary admission.

The Superior Court reviewed the Board's decision on a standard of reasonableness for questions of fact and mixed law and fact.

The court upheld the Board's findings, concluding that the Board reasonably considered Alta's difficulties with daily living, risk of retaliation due to aggressive behaviours, and medication mismanagement as factors contributing to serious physical impairment.

The court also found no error in the Board's assessment of Alta's unsuitability for voluntary admission, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found her incapable of making treatment decisions regarding anti-psychotic medications.

The Board found she understood relevant information but could not appreciate the foreseeable consequences of her decisions due to her inability to recognize her mental condition's manifestations.

The Superior Court upheld the Board's decision, finding no error of law and that the Board's application of the capacity test was reasonable, particularly regarding the corroboration of suicidal ideation as a manifestation of her condition, despite her attributing it to life circumstances.