Julie A. Zamprogna

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and an indecent act.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported an absolute discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's risk to public safety was well-managed by his placement in a long-term care facility, a Community Treatment Order, and his declining physical health.

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

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and Substance Use Disorder, had transitioned to living in the community but remained vulnerable to relapse due to isolation and lack of structured activities.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order remains necessary to facilitate rapid readmission if he decompensates.

The detention disposition was continued, with an expansion of community passes to the Province of Ontario.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's Detention Disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and has a history of rapid decompensation.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Disposition.

While the Board accepted recommendations to expand the geographic area for community living and reduce reporting requirements, it rejected the hospital's recommendation to remove the weapons prohibition, citing the accused's history of threatening behaviour and rapid decompensation.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and was subject to a conditional discharge.

At the annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Based on evidence from the attending psychiatrist that the accused's mental illness was well-managed, he was compliant with treatment, and he had successfully transitioned to independent living with community supports, the Board concluded the accused no longer posed a significant threat.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

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.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to Waypoint, arguing it was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's disposition as Waypoint would be better able to transition the appellant out of seclusion and provide necessary structure.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that rejected the treatment team's recommendation to allow him to live in approved community accommodation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety, but found the Board's rejection of the community living condition unreasonable.

The evidence showed the appellant received medication by bi-weekly injection and could be adequately monitored in the community.

The appeal was allowed and the Board's order was replaced with the hospital's recommendation.

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant challenged the reasonableness of a detention order and a 50 km radius restriction requiring proximity to the hospital.

The court held that the disposition was supported by the record and reflected the least restrictive disposition agreed to by the parties before the Board.

Although fresh evidence showed the appellant was doing well, that progress was for the next Board hearing and did not render the earlier disposition unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board.

With the advice of counsel, the appellant chose to proceed with a review of that disposition instead.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention in a medium secure unit, seeking a transfer to a minimum secure unit or a hybrid order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's order was not unreasonable given the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the appellant remained a high risk to reoffend and had yet to undergo psychiatric testing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a secure psychiatric unit with conditions allowing for community access.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge with a mandatory medication order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant remained a threat to public safety, lacked insight into his paranoid schizophrenia, and would likely stop taking medication if left to his own devices.

The Court concluded that the detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.