Julia Lauren Lefebvre

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.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining a detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2016 for threats and assault involving an airsoft rifle, had been conditionally discharged in 2020 but returned to detention in 2023.

The Board maintained the detention order based on the appellant's chronic cannabis addiction and the treating psychiatrist's opinion that continued use would create a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and that it failed to meaningfully consider less restrictive dispositions.

The court ordered a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant, M.R., appealed from a Superior Court order upholding the Consent and Capacity Board’s finding that he lacked capacity to consent to treatment.

The respondent, Dr. Achal Mishra, moved to adduce fresh evidence showing that M.R. was found capable of consenting to treatment in July 2024 and has maintained capacity since.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal to be moot, as there was no longer a live issue, and dismissed the appeal, admitting the fresh evidence and making no order as to costs.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision to continue his conditional discharge and deny his Charter application for an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and refusal to grant an absolute discharge were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also found no Charter breach, as the Board’s decision was based on public safety, not resource limitations.

The appellant, Jerome Williams, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision ordering his continued detention in the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs Division at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

Williams argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge, or alternatively, a transfer to a medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and the necessity of continued detention at Waypoint were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly in light of ongoing concerns about medication compliance and substance use.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for manslaughter, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order for failing to include a community living term.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it did not adequately balance all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, specifically the appellant's reintegration into society and mental condition, beyond public safety concerns.

The court emphasized the importance of including a community living term to address housing waitlists and facilitate long-term reintegration, even if not immediately exercisable, especially when there is no evidence of public safety risk.

The appeal was allowed, and the disposition order was amended to include a community living term with conditions.

The appellant, George Bennett, appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a finding of incapacity by the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his ability to make treatment decisions about antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erroneously preferred historical evidence over current evidence and erred in its assessment of his ability to appreciate the benefits of the medication.

The Court of Appeal, stepping into the shoes of the Superior Court, dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's decision.

The court affirmed that historical medical evidence can properly support an assessment of current capacity and that the Board was entitled to make credibility findings and prefer expert evidence.

The accused, a 21-year-old first offender, was found guilty of sexual assault against a 15-year-old victim whom he met online.

The Crown sought 24 to 30 months in custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate despite the accused's mitigating circumstances, including a difficult upbringing and lack of a criminal record.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months in custody followed by 18 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention at the North Bay Regional Health Centre.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the ORB unreasonably focused on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to the exclusion of trauma and Gladue principles, and whether its decision regarding smoking privileges was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground due to the appellant's concessions on the detention disposition.

Regarding smoking, the court found the ORB's decision reasonable, noting the hospital's smoke-free policy and the appellant's past non-compliance with privileges.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed an Ontario Review Board order requiring his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint).

The transfer was necessitated by the appellant's persistent harassing and stalking behaviour towards female staff at CAMH, which had exhausted CAMH's resources and posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's decision-making process, no reasonable apprehension of bias from the panel's composition, and that the Board's decision to transfer was reasonable given the safety risks and the exhaustion of CAMH's resources, particularly the need for a male-only unit.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board upholding a physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred by relying on outdated medical history and by conflating his disagreement with the proposed treatment with incapacity.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the appellate standards of review from Vavilov, finding that the Board's treatment of medical history was a question of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court concluded the Board correctly applied the legal test for capacity without resorting to a best interests analysis.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and invitation to sexual touching, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention and transfer to a medium security hospital.

The appellant argued the Board erred in rejecting the evidence of his psychotherapist and in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the Board to prefer the considerable body of expert evidence from other witnesses, and that the Board's disposition was reasonable.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) in 2007, appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge rather than granting an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the ORB's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that the Board misapplied the significant threat test by reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB's decision was reasonable, supported by psychiatric evidence of the appellant's ongoing symptoms and risk of re-offence, and that the Board correctly applied the "significant threat" test under the Criminal Code without reversing the burden of proof.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental illness, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition maintaining his detention at a high-security psychiatric facility.

The appellant argued the ORB failed to consider all statutory factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, recognize a treatment impasse, and exercise its inquisitorial and supervisory powers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court held that the ORB properly considered all relevant factors, reasonably declined to find a treatment impasse given the facility's ongoing efforts to find treatment options, and adequately fulfilled its supervisory responsibilities.

The Hospital appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to grant Jeffrey Smith an absolute discharge, arguing it was unreasonable given his history of violence, substance abuse, and limited insight into his mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly given the high standard for finding a "significant threat" and the deference owed to the Board's expertise.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's reasons were inadequate and failed to consider evidence relating to his ADHD diagnosis, feelings of hopelessness, and history of childhood sexual abuse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were adequate when viewed in the context of the entire record.

The Court noted that the ADHD evidence was central to the hospital's position, which the Board accepted, and that the other evidence did not diminish the justification for the Board's order.

The appellant, a psychiatrist, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found the respondent capable of consenting to treatment (antipsychotic medication).

The appellant argued the Board made a legal error by applying the wrong test for capacity and palpable and overriding errors of mixed law and fact by misapprehending crucial medical evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Board's application of the capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act, and no palpable and overriding error in its factual findings, including its assessment of the connection between the respondent's behavior and medication.

The appellant, a dual status dangerous offender under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, appealed the Board's decision declining a placement hearing and affirming his detention in a penitentiary over a maximum-secure forensic hospital.

The Board found the penitentiary placement appropriate given the appellant's extreme risk of re-offence, supported by uncontradicted expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, emphasizing that a court-imposed penitentiary sentence takes precedence for dual status offenders and that the Board's paramount responsibility is public safety.

The appeal was dismissed as the Board's findings were reasonable and amply supported by the record.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with privileges, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably determined that a detention order was necessary.

The court emphasized that the Board's decision was based on the brutal nature of the index offence and the need for close monitoring, distinguishing it from cases where expediency alone justified a restrictive disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his detention.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant public threat and in not adequately applying Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal granted fresh evidence motions from both parties but dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court affirmed that the appellant remained a significant threat due to unstable mental health, risk of medication non-compliance, and substance abuse, which could lead to re-offending.

The refusal of a conditional discharge was also deemed reasonable, as no adequate community treatment plan was in place, despite the consideration of Gladue factors.