Julia Rose Galessiere Cappellacci

The appellant challenged an annual Review Board disposition that maintained a conditional discharge based on a finding of significant threat to public safety.

On appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, the court admitted post-hearing psychiatric evidence showing medication discontinuation without decompensation, a revised diagnosis, and a materially lower structured risk assessment.

Applying the interests of justice framework for fresh evidence in NCRMD appeals, the court held the new record required allowing the appeal.

The court found remittal unnecessary because an absolute discharge was the only reasonable disposition on the updated evidence.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision refusing his transfer from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre back to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.

The appellant, aged 69 with schizoaffective disorder, pedophilic disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning, had been under the Board's jurisdiction since 1998.

After transferring to the Royal Ottawa in November 2024, he faced significantly enhanced liberty restrictions, including confinement to his ward and a pureed food diet due to choking risk.

The Board refused the transfer request, citing the brief duration of his stay and concerns about therapeutic alliance.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that it improperly focused on the appellant's best interests rather than the statutory "least onerous and least restrictive" standard.

The court ordered the transfer to Ontario Shores.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepdaughter, contrary to sections 271 and 151(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the trial judge improperly used the complainant's lack of embellishment as a credibility factor, contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reference to the complainant being a careful and cautious witness was a proper credibility assessment, and that the reasons, though brief, adequately explained the trial judge's findings when read in context and as a whole.