Julie Zamprogna Ballès

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Ernest Clayton’s appeal from a Review Board disposition finding him unfit and “permanently unfit” to stand trial.

The court held that the Board failed to apply the fitness test contextually, as required by law, and did not consider relevant evidence about the simplicity of the charges and Clayton’s ability to understand and respond to them.

The Board’s finding of permanent unfitness was also unsupported by sufficient reasons.

The matter was remitted to a differently constituted Board for a new determination of fitness.

The appellant, Brandon Mott, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found him incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic medication.

Mott, diagnosed with schizophrenia, denied his illness and argued the Board failed to consider reported side effects and the role of substance use in his mental health history.

The Board had concluded Mott was unable to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of declining treatment due to his inability to recognize the manifestations of his mental condition, a finding upheld by the court.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's decision.

Nathaniel White, found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that removed his community living and 30-day pass privileges.

The ORB had accepted his request for a lateral transfer to another facility but removed the privileges based on clinical opinion that community living was not realistic due to his recent decompensation and need for a slower, more supported approach to treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision was not unreasonable or based on an error of law, distinguishing it from a case where there was a misapprehension of information.

Joseph Haddad appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which ordered his detention at a forensic mental health centre subject to conditions, specifically challenging a condition prohibiting him from attending within 250 metres of his mother's home.

Haddad was found not criminally responsible for an index offence involving discharging a shotgun.

The Board's decision to impose the condition was based on concerns for public safety, psychological harm to neighbours, and the appellant's transition to community living.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's reasonable decision, noting that the condition served to address victim safety and was not a significant restraint on the appellant's liberty, especially as his physician did not recommend visits to the family home.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition dated February 1, 2018, ordering the appellant's detention subject to conditions.

The appeal became moot when the Board issued a new disposition on January 14, 2019, before the appeal hearing.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the moot appeal, applying the two-step analysis from Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General).

The court found no live controversy affecting the parties' rights and determined that the Borowski factors did not justify exercising discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The court indicated willingness to hear an appeal from the 2019 disposition at an early date.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the community.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge despite having requested a conditional discharge from the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding of significant threat as reasonable, noting that although the appellant had complied with the conditional discharge order for almost a year, the Board had concerns regarding the serious nature of the index offence, the appellant's history of substance abuse, and her continuing mental health symptoms.

The court also noted that all parties had made a joint submission accepting significant threat as not an issue for the Board.

The appellant appealed a disposition issued by the Ontario Review Board that imposed additional restrictions on his community access, reducing his indirectly supervised community access to a maximum of four hours with an approved itinerary and reducing day passes from seven days indirectly supervised to three days directly supervised.

The appellant challenged the disposition on multiple grounds, including that it was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, that the Board failed to carry out its inquisitorial mandate, that the Board focused exclusively on public safety, that a treatment impasse existed requiring Board intervention, and that the Board failed to consult the complete risk assessment report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the Board's disposition.