Julia Lauren Lefebvre

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, a high-secure facility.

The Board had recommended a transfer to a high-security facility in Quebec but rejected the appellant's request for an interim transfer to a medium-security facility in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of elopement, violent behaviour, and refusal of medication, which posed a significant threat to public safety.

The court upheld the Board's acceptance of the psychiatrist's opinion that the appellant was not suitable for a medium-security transfer at that time, emphasizing public safety as the paramount consideration.

The appellant, O’Dean McFarlane, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that transferred him from St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton to a higher security forensic facility at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appeal was based on two grounds: the Board's refusal to grant an adjournment of an early review hearing, which the appellant argued denied him a fair hearing, and the Board's alleged failure to discharge its inquisitorial duty to investigate concerns of unconscious racial bias influencing hospital staff's perception of him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary decision regarding the adjournment, as the issues were intertwined and no prejudice was demonstrated.

The court also held that the Board's inquisitorial duty was not triggered regarding racial bias, as there was no realistic possibility that further inquiry would have altered the decision, which was firmly rooted in objective evidence of the appellant's conduct.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for a violent assault due to schizophrenia, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (a high-security facility) rather than transferring him to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (a medium-security facility closer to his family).

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Board's disposition.

Given the appellant's history of violent and volatile behavior, fluctuating medication compliance, and St. Joseph's stated inability to manage him, the court found the Board's decision to keep him at Waypoint reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, found unfit to stand trial by the Ontario Court of Justice, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) subsequent disposition finding him unfit and ordering his detention.

The Court of Appeal confirmed its jurisdiction to hear appeals from ORB findings of unfitness that result in a disposition, distinguishing them from findings of fitness which do not.

On the merits, the court found the ORB's decision to be reasonable, giving appropriate weight to psychiatric assessments and counsel's representations regarding the appellant's ability to instruct counsel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was detained under an Ontario Review Board order following a finding of not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact in applying the test for capacity under s. 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in the Board's application of the law or its assessment of the evidence, including its credibility findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention at a high secure unit.

He sought a transfer to a less restrictive medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable given the appellant's continued threat to public safety, the unsuitability of other facilities due to risk management concerns and long waitlists, and recent aggressive incidents.

The court affirmed that reweighing evidence is not its role in reviewing Board decisions.

Jeffery Smith, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant public safety threat.

The ORB, and subsequently the Court of Appeal, found that despite a treating psychiatrist's opinion, other expert opinions and the appellant's history of non-compliance, lack of insight, and recent concerning behaviour (stunt driving and dishonesty) indicated a continued significant threat to public safety without ORB oversight.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conditional discharge.

This case involves an appeal by the accused against a finding of guilt and a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed for a sexual offense against a minor.

The Superior Court of Justice examined the trial judge's application of credibility assessment principles, particularly the R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. D.(J.J.R.) frameworks, in rejecting the accused's denial based on the compelling evidence of the complainant.

The court affirmed the trial judge's reasoning, finding it consistent with established jurisprudence.

Regarding the sentence appeal, the court acknowledged the trial judge's error in dismissing general deterrence but ultimately upheld the conditional discharge with probation, finding it within the range of appropriate dispositions given the specific circumstances of the offender and the successful completion of the sentence.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant public safety risk and seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on significant risk was reasonable, supported by clinical assessment, and that a conditional discharge was not appropriate given the appellant's limited insight and inability to be monitored in the community.

The court also found the Board adequately considered Gladue principles.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to reject a joint submission for his transfer to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the ORB's handling of the joint submission and that the ORB's decision to deny the transfer was reasonable given the appellant's recent history of aggressive and self-harming behaviour and the receiving institution's objections.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to public safety lacked evidentiary support, particularly concerning the link between substance use and mental decompensation or medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the expert opinion of the appellant's treatment team, which was based on years of experience.

The appeal was dismissed.

Mr. Motuz appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition refusing an absolute discharge, arguing the Board misapprehended evidence regarding his history and current risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence of his mental illness, lack of insight, stated non-compliance with medication, and continued public safety risk, even if its reasons were brief.

This appeal concerned the Ontario Review Board's refusal to order a psychiatric assessment for an accused, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) for double murder, who had been designated a "high-risk accused." The accused sought the assessment to promote an application to the Superior Court to remove his high-risk designation, arguing his progress meant he no longer qualified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Board's decision.

The Court clarified that the "substantial likelihood" test for reviewing a high-risk designation assesses the accused's inherent risk of violence if not subject to external constraints, not their risk under current supervised conditions.

Given the accused's history and ongoing risk factors, the Board's conclusion that an assessment would not change its determination was reasonable.

The Court also noted the Board's error in applying an "onus" on the accused in inquisitorial proceedings, though found it non-prejudicial.

John Doe brought a motion to extend the time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a lower court order that denied his standing to appear as an anonymous party and make submissions on an Anti-SLAPP motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that Doe did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period, his delay was a result of a failed litigation strategy, and granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the responding parties.

The court also found the proposed appeal lacked merit, rejecting the novel argument that Anti-SLAPP provisions protect anonymity in litigation.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued his detention.

He sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a transfer to a less secure psychiatric facility.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, supported by expert evidence.

The request for transfer was also denied as the proposed facilities lacked all-male units, a necessary condition given the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order.

The Court of Appeal found the Board erred in its application of the "significant risk" test, concluding there was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted.

The appellant appealed two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

The first disposition, which transferred him to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), was dismissed as moot by the Court of Appeal as it had been superseded.

The second disposition, which ordered his detention at the highly secure Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care due to worsening behaviour and significant threat to public safety, was upheld.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, emphasizing that public safety, including the safety of hospital staff and co-patients, is the paramount consideration under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and deferred to the Board's expertise in managing the risk posed by the individual.

This is an appeal from a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The original disposition became moot due to a subsequent detention order.

The appellant sought to incorporate the reasons from the new disposition into the current appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to hear it without a full and current record pertaining to the most recent disposition.

The appellant, a patient found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, sought a stay of a Superior Court order authorizing involuntary antipsychotic treatment.

This motion for a stay was brought pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that there was no serious question to be determined on appeal, the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm if the stay was denied, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored denying the stay.

The court emphasized the patient's suffering and the risk to hospital staff when he remained untreated.

At a case conference for an appeal from the Consent and Capacity Board, the self-represented appellant indicated he wished to argue the appeal himself.

The respondent doctor had also scheduled a motion for permission to treat the appellant against his will.

The court directed Legal Aid Ontario to investigate the appellant's status and appointed amicus curiae for the upcoming motion and appeal pursuant to Rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.