J. Thomson

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

The accused, who has severe autism and intellectual disabilities, was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of aggravated sexual assault.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight and problematic behaviours.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the hospital but added terms requiring his release to appropriate government-funded community housing in a timely fashion, with a pre-hearing conference scheduled within six months to monitor progress.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and forcible confinement.

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, continues to experience command hallucinations directing him to attack others.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain detained at the high secure forensic program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, finding it the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage his risk.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on various assault charges.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and remains in seclusion due to aggressive behaviour.

Based on hospital reports and psychiatric testimony, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the high secure forensic program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, denying a family request to transfer him to a less secure facility.

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

The accused remains treatment refractory, symptomatic, and unpredictable, requiring continued detention in a high secure program.

The Board accepted a joint submission to maintain the current disposition, with the sole modification of lifting the non-contact provisions regarding the accused's mother and grandmother.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused who had been found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused was placed in seclusion after attempting to assault a staff member at the psychiatric hospital.

The Board applied the Campbell framework and found that the accused's liberty norm was level C2 privileges, and the seclusion represented a significant increase in restriction.

The Board concluded that the restriction was necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of co-patients and staff, and that the hospital had imposed the least restrictive conditions possible by providing regular seclusion relief and a step-wise de-restraint process.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and failing to comply with probation.

At his initial appearance before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and Crown took the position that he remained unfit, while his counsel took no position.

The Board observed the accused's florid presentation and constant interruptions during the hearing.

Relying on the hospital's reports and the accused's presentation, the Board concluded that he remains unable to instruct counsel or participate in a trial, and ordered a disposition in accordance with the hospital's recommendations.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an NCR accused who was placed in seclusion at a mental health facility.

The accused's mental state had rapidly deteriorated due to medication changes and non-compliance, leading to agitation and aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that seclusion was necessary to manage the high risk of unpredictable physical violence.

The Board concluded that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary for public safety, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available.

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

The accused, who has schizophrenia, experienced a period of seclusion after an unprovoked incident of spitting on co-patients.

The Board applied the Campbell framework and found that the significant increase in the restriction of his liberty was necessary and appropriate.

Accepting the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his current disposition at the high-secure forensic hospital.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, underwent his annual review before the Ontario Review Board.

He suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and has been in continuous seclusion due to violent assaults on hospital staff driven by command hallucinations.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continuation of his current detention disposition at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, while recommending the hospital explore alternative treatments such as ECT and investigate potential intellectual deficits from early head injuries.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with a probation order.

The Board accepted the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder and an acquired brain injury, continues to experience persecutory delusions and has engaged in aggressive behaviour requiring seclusion.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered no change to his current disposition, maintaining his detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the representative of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company to answer questions refused during cross-examination and to reattend.

Prior to the hearing, the parties settled the motion on consent.

The court granted the relief sought in accordance with the draft order.

The patient, who was found not criminally responsible and detained in a high-security forensic hospital, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding he lacked capacity to consent to treatment.

The treating doctor brought a motion under section 19 of the Health Care Consent Act to authorize antipsychotic medication pending the appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the patient's condition was unstable, he suffered from severe delusions, and the proposed treatment was likely to substantially improve his condition with the benefits outweighing the risks.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the assignment of stripping reusable formwork at two construction sites.

The work was claimed by both the applicant and the responding union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer had not made a clear assignment and that area and employer practices were mixed.

The Board concluded that the work ought to have been assigned to a composite crew of labourers and carpenters, consistent with the employer's past practice, and directed the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate composition of the crew.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial agreement by failing to pay the correct wage rates for excavating work.

The employer argued it was entitled to pay the lower 'mid-line' rates under Schedule 'D' of the agreement, which applied to members of the Toronto & District Excavators Association, or alternatively that denying it access to those rates was discriminatory under section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that because the employer was not a member of the Association and did not pay the mid-line rate on all its work, it was bound by the higher general rates in Schedule 'J'.

The Board directed the employer to make the appropriate payments.