Julie A. Zamprogna

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for theft, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order with community privileges, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board found that an absolute discharge would pose a significant public safety threat due to likely medication non-compliance and substance abuse leading to decompensation.

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

The court rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider the appellant's improvements or misapprehended evidence regarding substance use, emphasizing that appellate review is limited to reasonableness and does not involve reweighing evidence.

Fresh evidence regarding recent decompensation reinforced the Board's conclusion.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for assault, mischief, and probation breach, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his detention.

The ORB had found he still posed a significant threat due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder, despite no recent assaultive behaviour, because of his inability to manage distress and potential for volatility.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge, or a new hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's assessment of significant risk and its decision not to grant a conditional discharge were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and met the standard of review.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board (ORB).

The ORB's decision was based on the appellant's diagnosis of bipolar disorder with psychotic features, ADHD, and substance abuse disorder, which led to the index offences and posed a significant risk to public safety due to lack of insight and medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the ORB properly determined a detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition, as a conditional discharge lacked an air of reality given the conceded significant risk and the appellant's condition.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed a detention order, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that the Board reasonably rejected a conditional discharge.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's history of non-compliance with hospital stays, her limited insight into her mental illness, and the unsuitability of the proposed housing with her husband, given their problematic relationship and her past unstable housing as a risk factor.

The court found no error in the Board's assessment that a detention order was necessary to manage the significant risk to public safety.

This is an appeal by Derek Halat from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (ORB), dated January 14, 2019, and April 24, 2019.

The first appeal was rendered moot by the subsequent, stricter disposition.

The appellant, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and substance abuse disorder, was ordered detained at Waypoint, a maximum-security facility, due to a history of violence and recent threatening behavior, including death threats against hospital staff.

The ORB found the appellant continued to present a significant threat to public safety and that his transfer to Waypoint was necessary and appropriate.

The Court of Appeal found the ORB's rationale and outcome reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care with permission to live in approved accommodation.

The appellant sought to quash the order and substitute a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding no error in the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety and that the detention disposition was the least onerous and restrictive option available.

The appeal was dismissed.

An appellant found not criminally responsible for theft under $5,000 appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he posed a significant risk of physical or psychological violence to the public, citing the absence of violent behaviour in recent years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety based on his mental health history, criminal record, aggressive behaviour in detention, resistance to treatment, risk assessment scores, and lack of insight into his condition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for offences including break and entry, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, escaping lawful custody, and robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing the Board unreasonably concluded detention was necessary and improperly considered the risk of illicit drug use and the ease of readmission as factors in its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that supervision of housing and readmission capability are relevant considerations for the Board in determining appropriate dispositions.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing there was no evidence he posed a significant threat to public safety, the Board's reasons were insufficient, and his lack of incident while off medication for over a year demonstrated reduced risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reliance on psychiatric evidence of continued mental illness symptoms and escalating risk assessment was reasonable and supported by evidence.