Julia Lauren Lefebvre

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning a person under the Board’s jurisdiction who had been approved for supervised community living but had not yet secured an appropriate placement.

The Board expanded the permitted geographic scope of community accommodation to Southern Ontario but declined to order an independent housing assessment, finding the request premature in light of ongoing placement efforts.

The Court of Appeal found no error in that approach and dismissed the appeal.

The court added that, if housing is still not secured by the next review hearing, the Board should engage its inquisitorial mandate and require further evidence, expert or otherwise, on the housing challenges.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to significantly restrict the accused's liberty by placing him in seclusion following a severe assault on a co-patient.

The accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for assault, was secluded from November 2 to November 22, 2023, due to imminent risk of violence, active psychotic symptoms, and weapon-making behaviour.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary for public safety.

Additionally, the Board ordered an independent assessment of the accused's mental condition and risk to public safety to be completed prior to his annual review hearing.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused, who was subject to a disposition ordering his detention, had been placed in seclusion for a period exceeding seven days following an incident where he attempted to punch a staff member.

The Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of liberty.

The Board found that both the initial restriction and the continuing restriction until his discharge from seclusion were necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive options available to the hospital given the accused's history of assaultive behaviour, increase in symptoms, and refusal to accept medication.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, has been held in seclusion and strongly opposes long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.

The Board accepted psychiatric evidence that the accused fabricates symptoms to avoid medication and would pose a significant threat to public safety if released from the highly structured environment.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition and maintained its recommendation for an interprovincial transfer to Philippe-Pinel.

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

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for murder and other offences, was detained at a high secure forensic hospital.

All parties jointly submitted that the accused should be transferred to a medium secure facility.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his maladaptive personality traits, cannabis use disorder, and lack of meaningful engagement in treatment.

The Board rejected the joint submission, concluding that a continuation of the detention order at the high secure facility was the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage his risk.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for dangerous driving causing death following a single psychotic episode.

At her annual Review Board hearing, the hospital and her counsel sought an absolute discharge, while the Attorney General sought a conditional discharge.

The Board excused the accused during the reading of Victim Impact Statements to protect her mental health.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused no longer had an active psychiatric diagnosis, had been stable off antipsychotic medication for over two years, and had developed strong insight and community supports, the Board concluded she no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

An absolute discharge was granted.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his disposition.

The accused brought motions arguing the Board lost jurisdiction due to delay and alleging bias and misconduct by the clinical team and Board members.

The Board dismissed the motions, finding the delays were necessary to protect the accused's rights and the other issues were beyond its jurisdiction or previously decided.

On the merits, the Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to untreated schizophrenia and ongoing paranoid ideation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at a high secure facility.

The accused, a 75-year-old man with major neurocognitive disorder, was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault and failing to comply with probation.

The Ontario Review Board determined that he remained unfit to stand trial due to severe functional impairment and memory deficits.

The Board ordered a detention order, transferring the accused to an all-male forensic unit at CAMH, with privileges for community access and conditions including a substance prohibition and drug screening to manage his risk of sexually inappropriate behaviour.

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

The accused, now a dual-status offender serving a federal sentence for assaulting hospital staff, was recently transferred to a federal institution in British Columbia.

The parties jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the accused continues to pose a significant threat, and ordered the continuation of his detention order at the secure forensic hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review four restrictions of liberty (seclusions) imposed on the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The hospital presented evidence that the seclusions were necessary due to the accused's escalating violent behaviour, threats, and refusal to take antipsychotic medication.

The accused conceded that the initial decisions to seclude were justified but challenged the length of the detentions.

The Board found that all four seclusions were justified, necessary, and the least restrictive measures available to manage the risk of harm to others.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder and designated a high-risk offender.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention.

However, recognizing his clinical progress, the Board approved a joint recommendation to transfer him from a high-secure to a medium-secure forensic facility with increased privileges, including escorted community passes.

The Board dismissed the accused's request to refer his high-risk offender designation back to the Superior Court for removal, finding that his progress had not been significantly impeded by the designation and the threshold for referral was not met.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges.

The hospital brought a preliminary motion to withhold certain disposition information from the accused, which the Board granted, finding that disclosure would likely endanger safety or impair recovery.

The Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ordered his continued detention at the high-secure forensic program at Waypoint, noting the ongoing need for seclusion but acknowledging recent improvements.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and manslaughter and designated as a high-risk accused.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-refractory schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at a high-secure facility but amended the disposition to remove absences for 'compassionate' and 'legal' purposes to comply with the restrictions on high-risk accused under s. 672.64(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine whether the accused, who had been found unfit to stand trial on charges of uttering threats and attempting to disarm a police officer, remained unfit.

The Board concluded that the accused remained unfit to stand trial due to his intellectual developmental disorder and schizoaffective disorder.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at a high-secure hospital to manage his risk of harm and support his return to fitness, and directed the preparation of a Gladue Report.

The Board also determined it lacked jurisdiction to review a prior period of seclusion, as it occurred before the Board had made a disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible, who had been placed in seclusion at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of violence, was placed in seclusion after his mental state decompensated and he refused medication.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the seclusion remained necessary due to the accused's risk, though he was showing improvement after starting injectable medication.

The Board concluded that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least onerous and least restrictive placement available.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal allowed.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberties imposed on the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial and detained at a mental health facility.

The hospital had secluded the accused on two occasions due to his deteriorating mental state, agitation, and risk of harm to others.

The Board found that both periods of seclusion were warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive means to manage the accused's risk.

However, the Board directed the attending psychiatrist to canvass the risks and benefits of injectable medications with the accused's substitute decision-maker to address suboptimal treatment caused by the diversion of oral medications.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for two counts of murder, rape, and indecent assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Sexual Sadism, Transvestic Fetishism, and Antisocial Personality Disorder, sought an amendment to his detention disposition to allow an escorted bank visit.

The Board accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that his disorders are untreatable.

The Board maintained the detention disposition at the secure forensic facility but granted the request for a one-time, staff-escorted bank visit.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of failing to comply with SOIRA.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought to detain the accused at a maximum secure facility without the possibility of transfer, while the accused sought to maintain the ability to transfer to a less secure facility.

Applying the test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board found the accused remained unfit to stand trial due to mutism caused by his mental illness.

However, noting recent improvements following the administration of long-acting injectable medication, the Board maintained the current disposition allowing for a potential transfer to a less secure facility.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-refractory schizophrenia, sought an absolute discharge or transfer to a less secure setting.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, lack of insight, and a history of violence.

The Board ordered continued detention in a high secure forensic facility but added terms requiring the hospital to report on the implementation of a finger-prick blood monitoring system to facilitate the accused's willingness to try clozapine.