Julie A. Zamprogna Ballès

Appeal under s. 80 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming a health practitioner's finding that the appellant was incapable with respect to proposed treatment in the classes of antipsychotic medications, mood stabilizers, and anxiolytics.

The appellant argued the Board erred by accepting a seven-day gap between the psychiatrist's last capacity assessment and the hearing, misapprehending a social worker's note as a clinical assessment, and failing to carefully weigh hearsay.

The court found the Board applied the correct legal test from Starson, acknowledged the presumption of capacity and onus on the health practitioner, and reasonably concluded that incapacity persisted as of the hearing date based on enduring lack of insight and corroborative clinical entries.

Appeal dismissed and Board's decision confirmed.

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.

David Grant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for harassment and breach of peace bond due to bipolar disorder and delusions, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition.

The Board denied his request for an absolute discharge, continuing his detention with privileges at a forensic mental health care centre, and imposing contact restrictions.

Grant argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant public threat, lacking evidence for a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious criminal offence if discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's expertise and finding its risk assessment reasonable, given Grant's continued delusions, cannabis use exacerbating his condition, and consistent fixation on the victim, concluding he would likely re-engage in criminal behaviour without supervision.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for attempted murder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

He argued the ORB's finding of a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and presented fresh evidence of improved stability and a developed therapeutic relationship with his community psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's original decision reasonable at the time it was made.

While admitting the fresh evidence, the majority declined to grant an absolute discharge, preferring that the ORB, as the expert body, make that determination at an already scheduled early review hearing.

A dissenting judge would have granted the absolute discharge based on the fresh evidence.

The appellant, Bradley Cable, appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, following a finding of not criminally responsible for various offences.

Cable argued the Board erred in not considering a conditional discharge as the least onerous option, despite conceding he posed a substantial public safety risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was amply supported by evidence, including psychiatric reports indicating severe untreated mental health issues and a high risk of reoffending, and that there was no air of reality to the possibility of a conditional discharge.

Matthew Bilodeau appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge but reduced his reporting obligation, seeking an absolute discharge.

He argued the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and speculative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable and grounded in evidence, particularly concerning the severity of the index offence, the need for active monitoring due to his mental disorder, and the risks associated with medication non-compliance and the transition to a new therapeutic team.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats to burn property and breaching court orders.

The Ontario Review Board ordered her detention at a forensic mental health centre.

She appealed, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant threat to the public and in failing to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the appellant lacked community supports, had a history of non-compliance, and would likely revert to substance abuse and decompensate if released.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention of an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused at a forensic psychiatric hospital with community living privileges.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the detention order remained necessary and appropriate given the appellant's ongoing mental health and substance use issues, poor insight into her condition, vulnerability to relapse, and recent threatening behaviour.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the Board failed to consider relevant factors including her sobriety, age-related reduction in violence risk, negative effects of hospitalization, and commitment to treatment compliance.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining a detention order for his care.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault, forcible confinement, and criminal harassment.

The Board accepted a joint submission from the appellant's counsel and physician to continue detention with increased community passes.

The appellant argued the Board erred in accepting the joint submission without properly discharging its inquisitorial duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board was entitled to rely on the joint submission and had conducted its own inquiry concluding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his involuntary admission, community treatment order, and incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not assessing incapacity in the context of informed consent and by making a blanket finding of incapacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable.

The court held that the appellant's delusions rendered him unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision, and that the finding of incapacity was properly related to a specific treatment and time.

The appellant, who was found unfit to stand trial due to an intellectual disability, appealed a Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to the public and in failing to impose the least onerous disposition, specifically a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding on significant threat as reasonable, but agreed the Board erred by failing to consider whether a conditional discharge could ensure public safety.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board to consider a conditional discharge.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and mischief, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that reaffirmed a hybrid detention order.

He argued he should be granted an absolute discharge, claiming he had initially malingered his symptoms and did not suffer from a mental disorder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant suffered from a major mental illness and remained a significant threat to public safety was well-supported by the evidence.

The appellant, who had previously been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a mental health facility.

The Review Board had concluded that the appellant posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, largely based on his history of medication non-compliance and marijuana use leading to mental deterioration.

The Court of Appeal found that the Review Board's conclusion was unreasonable, as the attending psychiatrist's opinion was uncertain and the appellant's history did not demonstrate a significant likelihood of physical violence.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The appellant, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder and was found not criminally responsible, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention in a minimum-secure facility.

He argued the Board erred by failing to adequately consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board did err by failing to consider whether the appellant would consent to medication conditions and by failing to properly analyze the mechanisms under the Criminal Code and Mental Health Act for returning him to the hospital if he decompensated.

However, the appeal was dismissed due to fresh evidence showing the appellant had stopped taking his medication, decompensated, and been returned to a medium-secure unit.