Julia Lauren Lefebvre

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.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of violence, was placed in seclusion after becoming hostile, unresponsive to staff direction, and refusing his antipsychotic medication.

The Board applied the framework from Regina v. M.L.C. and found that both the initial placement in seclusion and the ongoing restriction of liberty were warranted, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available to safely manage his risk of harm to others.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to correct an oversight in the accused's previous disposition.

The accused had been found unfit to stand trial and was ordered transferred to a different hospital.

The previous disposition erroneously awarded him indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, which do not exist at that facility.

On consent of all parties, the Board ordered the deletion of the erroneous paragraph, leaving the rest of the disposition intact.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible, was detained at a psychiatric hospital.

Following unprovoked assaults on a co-patient and staff, the hospital placed the accused in locked seclusion and notified the Ontario Review Board.

The Board applied the Campbell framework and concluded that the significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous measure available to protect public safety.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, a dual status offender who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, and later convicted of manslaughter and designated a dangerous offender.

The accused is currently detained in a Special Handling Unit following a first-degree murder charge related to the death of a fellow inmate.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his extensive history of violence, major mental illness, and serious personality disorder.

The Board ordered that the current detention order remain in place and extended the time for the next review to 24 months.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that the accused's liberty had been restricted following his placement in seclusion.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of second-degree murder, had been transferred to a high-secure forensic program after an unprovoked attack on his attending psychiatrist.

The Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, 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 in the circumstances.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences including robbery and dangerous driving.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, continued to experience psychotic symptoms and violent thoughts, and remained resistant to medication.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital's psychiatrist that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order at the high secure forensic program, with a recommendation for transfer to the Institute of Philippe-Pinel in Quebec.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and other offences.

The accused has a complex psychiatric profile, including schizoaffective disorder and a history of polysubstance abuse, and recently assaulted staff while in treatment.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care with appropriate privileges and conditions to facilitate his rehabilitation and manage his risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused suffers from autism spectrum disorder and other conditions, and has a history of significant behavioural issues requiring hospital detention.

Based on the joint position of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current disposition detaining the accused at the hospital, with the modification that reviews will now be held annually rather than every two years.

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

The accused was placed in seclusion for eight days after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behaviour towards staff.

Applying the Campbell framework, the Board found that the significant restriction of the accused's liberty was both necessary and appropriate from its initiation through to its termination to ensure the safety of staff and co-patients.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and robbery and designated as a high-risk accused.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention order, and the accused did not contest his high-risk designation at this time.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to treatment refractory schizophrenia and a risk of decompensation if untreated.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on assault charges.

The accused suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and remains in seclusion due to unpredictable and aggressive behaviour.

Applying the tests from Taylor and Bharwani, the Board accepted uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains unable to meaningfully participate in a trial or instruct counsel.

The Board found the accused unfit to stand trial, but not permanently so, and ordered the continuation of his detention at the high-secure forensic hospital as he remains a significant threat to public safety.

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.