Julie A. Zamprogna

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty review for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The accused had absconded from the hospital, used substances, and missed his medication injection, resulting in a significant restriction of his liberty upon his return.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

The Board also concluded that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention disposition with an increase in 7-day passes to facilitate community reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for various violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had shown progress with a new medication regimen but continued to experience hallucinations and lacked full insight into his illness.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with joint-submission amendments, removing the requirement for supervised accommodation and granting accompanied community passes.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, had voluntarily returned to the hospital multiple times due to cannabis use, which exacerbates his psychotic symptoms.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence and a joint submission from the parties, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, finding it necessary to manage his risk and support his reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including arson and assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and polysubstance abuse, had relapsed into crystal methamphetamine use and experienced mental decompensation during the review period.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition with expanded indirectly supervised passes, but extended the 'abstain' clause to prohibit the non-medicinal use of cannabis and alcohol due to their role in his decompensation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempt to commit murder and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder in remission, was residing in the community on a conditional discharge.

Based on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge but removed the absolute abstention clause regarding alcohol and drugs, as recommended by the joint submission of the parties, to allow the accused to demonstrate independent abstinence.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a restriction of liberty and the disposition of an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The accused had been readmitted to the hospital after struggling with stressors and substance use in the community, resulting in a restriction of his indirectly supervised access to the community.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous measure.

The Board also concluded the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his bipolar disorder, substance use vulnerability, and fluctuating insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention disposition, with an expansion of the geographic area in which he is permitted to reside to facilitate a potential transition to living with his mother.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder due to schizophrenia.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatric team that the accused has made progress but remains stress-vulnerable and requires ongoing medication optimization.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A detention disposition was ordered, allowing for gradual reintegration into the community through supervised passes and potential group home placement, subject to strict monitoring and geographic restrictions.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and resisting arrest.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review her fitness and determine the appropriate disposition.

Based on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to severe intellectual disability and schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with privileges, finding she requires a highly structured 24/7 supervised setting to manage her complex needs and mitigate the high risk of violent reoffending.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for attempted murder and possession of a prohibited weapon.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorder, remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at the forensic hospital with specific privileges and conditions, including a prohibition on weapons and substances, and directed the preparation of a Gladue Report.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and pedophilia, had made positive progress in a supervised group home and remained abstinent from substances.

However, due to his partial insight and need for external supervision to maintain medication compliance, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge but removed the substance abstention clause to test his ability to remain abstinent without extrinsic legal support.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and assault.

The accused had been residing in a long-term care home and demonstrated significant stability with the support of a geriatric psychiatry team and a community treatment order.

The Board accepted the joint submission and uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused's risk of harm was minimal and diminishing.

Finding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for criminal harassment, failure to comply with a release order, and uttering threats.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from bipolar disorder and a substance use disorder, continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, with conditions including a weapons prohibition, abstention from intoxicants, and no-contact provisions regarding the victim and their child.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty after he was placed in seclusion for 14 days following an unprovoked assault on a co-patient.

The Board applied the Campbell framework and found that the seclusion constituted a significant increase in the restriction of liberty.

However, the Board concluded that the hospital's actions were reasonable, warranted, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to manage the heightened risk posed by the accused's mental decompensation and aggressive behaviour.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for theft under $5000.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cognitive deficits, had been residing in a locked long-term care unit and demonstrated significant stability and compliance with treatment.

The treatment team, the hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended an absolute discharge.

Applying the test from Winko, the Board concluded that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges including sexual assault and criminal harassment.

The accused suffers from Major Neurocognitive Disorder secondary to Adrenoleukodystrophy, resulting in progressive cognitive and physical deterioration.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and poses a significant threat to public safety due to impulsive and sexually aggressive behaviours.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition at the forensic hospital, with a reduction in reporting requirements, while noting that long-term care would be a more appropriate placement once substitute decision-maker issues are resolved.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to determine if the accused, previously found unfit to stand trial on various assault and failure to comply charges, had regained fitness.

Based on psychiatric evidence that the accused's symptoms significantly improved with new medication, the Board found the accused fit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the accused to be returned to court for a fitness determination and, pursuant to s. 672.49(1) of the Criminal Code, ordered continued detention in the hospital to ensure fitness is maintained pending the court appearance.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for firearms offences and breach of a release order.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the parties jointly submitted that he remained a significant threat to public safety and should be subject to a detention order.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused's substance use disorder and potential primary psychotic disorder required ongoing treatment in a hospital setting to manage his risk of violence.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and history of decompensation linked to cannabis use.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was insufficient to manage the risk and ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including a prohibition on cannabis use and a requirement to report four times per month.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including failure to comply with a probation order and release orders.

The matter was remitted to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board heard psychiatric evidence that the accused suffers from Huntington's Disease, resulting in severe cognitive decline, delusions, and psychosis.

Applying the fitness test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board concluded the accused lacked a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and could not meaningfully instruct counsel.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with privileges for community living in approved accommodation, prioritizing public safety and the accused's need for supervised care.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for break and enter a dwelling house and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Review Board for a disposition hearing.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, and continues to experience delusions similar to those that precipitated the index offence.

The Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his lack of insight, history of treatment non-adherence, and risk of environmental violence.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including hospital approval of accommodation, as the least onerous and restrictive disposition necessary to manage the risk.