Julia Lauren Lefebvre

The accused, found not criminally responsible (NCR) and detained at a high-security psychiatric facility, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of sections 672.51(3) and (6) of the Criminal Code.

These provisions allow the Ontario Review Board to withhold disposition information from an accused and exclude them from parts of their hearing if disclosure would likely endanger another person or seriously impair the accused's treatment.

The accused argued this violated his section 7 Charter right to procedural fairness.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while section 7 is engaged, the provisions conform to the principles of fundamental justice.

The Board emphasized the inquisitorial and therapeutic context of Review Board hearings and held that the appointment of amicus curiae with a broad mandate serves as a substantial substitute for full disclosure and participation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the disposition for an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1981 and later declared a dangerous offender.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violent and sexual offending, high risk for recidivism, mental health issues, and problematic institutional behavior.

The Board ordered no change to his current disposition, detaining him at Bath Institution and Waypoint Centre, and extended the time before his next hearing to 24 months on consent.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, a dual status offender who was previously found not criminally responsible for property offences and subsequently convicted of second-degree murder.

The accused has a lengthy history of institutional violence and is currently detained in a federal penitentiary.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his mental health diagnoses, history of violence, and recent assaults while incarcerated.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a Detention Order at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, to take effect when he is no longer subject to a term of imprisonment.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for Adam Sean Palmer, a dual status offender who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and later designated a Dangerous Offender following severe institutional violence.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his partially treatment-resistant schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, and history of unpredictable, unprovoked violence.

The Board maintained the existing disposition ordering his detention at a high-secure forensic hospital upon the cessation of his penitentiary sentence, and declined to order a placement hearing, finding that his current placement in the federal penitentiary system is necessary to safely manage his acute risk.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on charges including sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, who suffers from an anoxic brain injury and antisocial personality disorder, has a history of unpredictable and sexually inappropriate behaviour towards female hospital staff.

The Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered his continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and rejected the hospital's recommendation to transfer him to Ontario Shores, concluding that his behaviour poses an unacceptable risk to female patients and staff at a coed facility.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of mischief, assault with a weapon, and assaulting a peace officer.

At an initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital reported that the accused's psychosis had been effectively treated and that he was intentionally exaggerating his misunderstanding of the court process to avoid being released to homelessness.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the medical evidence, finding that the accused had a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and could meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The accused was found fit to stand trial and ordered returned to court.

The hospital requested an early Ontario Review Board hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, due to his escalating substance use and suspected medication non-compliance while living in the community.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and multiple substance use disorders, agreed with the hospital and the Attorney General that he remained a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused's risk of violence increases with substance use and that the Mental Health Act is insufficient to manage this risk, the Board accepted the joint submission.

The Board revoked the conditional discharge and imposed a detention order with an abstinence clause to ensure continuous monitoring and timely intervention.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing and four restriction of liberty hearings for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and antisocial personality disorder, had experienced a deterioration in his mental state after his medication was reduced.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage his risk.

The Board renewed the detention disposition and found that the four periods of seclusion were warranted and the least restrictive options available at the time.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible, alongside a hospital-initiated motion to transfer the accused from Brockville Mental Health Centre to Waypoint Centre.

The accused, diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, exhibited persistent aggression, violence, and rule-breaking at Brockville, leading to a treatment impasse.

The Board found that Brockville could not adequately manage the accused's risk to staff and vulnerable co-patients.

The Board ordered the transfer to Waypoint, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive option to manage the accused's high risk of violence while addressing rehabilitation.

Certain community access privileges were also removed from the disposition pending the transfer.

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 Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused is currently incarcerated awaiting trial on numerous new violent offences.

Based on psychiatric evidence indicating severe antisocial personality disorder, substance abuse, and a high risk of reoffending, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, concluding it is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available to manage his risk.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for various offences in 2002, suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to experience active psychotic symptoms, lacks insight into his illness, and has a history of violence and treatment non-compliance.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention at a high-secure hospital with the same terms and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder in 2005.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended no change to his current detention disposition at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, lacks insight into his mental illness, and refuses treatment.

The Board ordered the continuation of his existing detention disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and criminal harassment.

The accused requested a transfer from a high-security hospital to a less secure facility.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to high psychopathy, impression management, and risk of decompensation if exposed to substances.

The Board ordered the accused's continued detention at the high-security facility with a minor amendment allowing escorted access to hospital grounds.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia, substance use disorders, and a traumatic brain injury, and requires ongoing seclusion due to violent behaviour.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition with privileges and directed the preparation of a Gladue Report for the next annual hearing.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences including first-degree murder.

The hospital recommended transferring the accused from a high secure to a medium secure facility.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted medical evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but has stabilized on medication.

The Board ordered the transfer to the medium secure facility with strict conditions, including a requirement to notify the victims if the accused goes AWOL.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual disposition hearing.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing his detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, while his counsel requested an independent assessment, arguing a treatment impasse had been reached due to his prolonged seclusion.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-resistant schizophrenia, command hallucinations, and history of violence.

The Board concluded there was no treatment impasse, as the hospital continued to explore medication optimization, and ordered the continuation of the existing detention disposition.

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 Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to determine the fitness of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of assault and failure to comply with a probation order.

The accused suffers from severe schizophrenia and has a history of extreme violence.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused remains psychotic, paranoid, and unfit to stand trial, as his condition would impair his ability to instruct counsel and participate in a trial.

The Board ordered continued detention at the hospital.