Joshua W. P. White

The appellant, under the supervision of the Ontario Review Board since 2009 for serious offences, appealed the Board's disposition maintaining his detention at Ontario Shores.

He argued the detention order was not the least onerous or restrictive, seeking a conditional discharge or a rehearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable, particularly its rejection of a conditional discharge due to the appellant's continued need for professional supervision and history of relapse.

The court affirmed that the Board is not required to address every piece of evidence in its reasons.

The appellant, J.N., appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for meaningful appellate review.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to adequately address the complainant's prior inconsistent allegation and other material inconsistencies in her evidence, which were central to her credibility and reliability.

The appellant, Prof. Starson, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in concluding he remained a significant threat to public safety, failing to consider a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition, and providing direction to the Hospital instead of ordering a discharge plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Board's decision.

The court upheld the Board's finding that the appellant lacked insight into his mental illness and would pose a significant public risk without medication, justifying a detention order.

The court also found the Board's direction to the Hospital regarding a discharge plan was appropriate.