Kate Irwin

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and breach of probation, was subject to a mandatory annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, alcohol cravings, and recent incidents of elopement and unprovoked assault while in hospital.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition to manage his risk and facilitate further treatment.

Sentencing of an accused found guilty by jury of aggravated assault and uttering threats to cause bodily harm, who also pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited weapon.

The accused stabbed the victim with a spring-operated knife during a consensual fist fight after threatening him on Facebook.

The court accepted a joint submission for a conditional sentence of two years less a day with a house arrest component for the first twelve months, followed by a curfew.

Significant mitigating factors included the accused's extensive rehabilitative efforts addressing severe alcohol addiction, employment stability, family support, and compliance with release conditions.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, ten-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the knife.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge.

The accused had been found not criminally responsible for assault.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the hospital's most responsible physician, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-refractory schizophrenia, a history of substance use, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge without adding the travel restrictions proposed by the hospital and the Crown, finding them unnecessary given the accused's compliance and therapeutic alliance.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault, was subject to a review hearing by the Ontario Review Board.

The hearing was convened early to consider expanding his travel passes to allow attendance at a family wedding in Montreal.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness and substance use history.

However, noting his progress, abstinence from substances, and the supportive nature of the family event, the Board concluded that adding the requested travel pass provisions to his detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk while supporting his reintegration.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and uttering threats.

At her annual Review Board hearing, the majority found she no longer poses a significant threat to public safety, noting she has been stable in the community without antipsychotic medication for 18 months and has not reoffended.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

The Board also found that a recent hospital readmission that restricted her liberty was not reasonable or necessary to manage public safety.

A dissenting member concluded the accused remains a significant risk due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, non-adherence to medication, and stated intentions to contact the victim.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused remains treatment refractory, symptomatic, and unpredictable, requiring continued detention in a high secure program.

The Board accepted a joint submission to maintain the current disposition, with the sole modification of lifting the non-contact provisions regarding the accused's mother and grandmother.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused's attending psychiatrist testified that the accused had stabilized, secured full-time employment, and moved into supportive housing, recommending a conditional discharge.

The Crown opposed the conditional discharge due to partial insight and risk factors.

The Board found that the accused had made commendable progress over the past year and granted a conditional discharge with conditions, including a specified address to consolidate recent gains.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for uttering threats and breach of probation.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to active symptoms of schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including supervised community access, abstention from intoxicants, and a no-contact order regarding his parents.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

While the accused showed improvement and good insight when compliant with antipsychotic medication, he recently relapsed into crack cocaine use.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety.

A detention order was maintained to allow the hospital to supervise his treatment, manage his substance use relapse, and control his transition into the community.

The offender, Justin Cassie-Berube, was sentenced for manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault related to the death of a five-year-old child, Chloe.

The court found that the offender failed to provide necessities of life and medical attention to Chloe, leading to her death, and had repeatedly abused her.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, breach of trust, and the deliberate failure to seek medical help to avoid legal jeopardy.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, young age, and mental health issues, though his lack of true remorse limited mitigation.

A global sentence of 14 years imprisonment was imposed, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence.

The accused, Justin Cassie-Berube, was charged with six counts relating to the death of a five-year-old girl, including failing to provide necessaries of life, criminal negligence causing death, manslaughter, assault causing bodily harm, and assault.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The judgment detailed the child's deteriorating health due to a bladder rupture and other injuries, and the accused's conscious decision to withhold medical attention due to fear of legal jeopardy from the child's visible bruises.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person, directly contributing to the child's death.

The accused, A.R.-P., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, exposing genitals, and inviting sexual touching against his stepdaughter, E.E., spanning from 2014 to 2018.

The key issues involved assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, particularly the child victim.

The court applied the principles for assessing child witness testimony, including the W.(D.) framework.

The court found the victim's testimony credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's explanations as preposterous and self-serving.

The accused was convicted on all counts, with further submissions to be heard regarding the application of the Kienapple rule and potential overcharging.

The court determined whether a Sexual Assault Evidence Kit (SAEK) constitutes a "record" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, which would require a special application for its admissibility in sexual assault trials.

The Crown argued it was a record, while the defence contended it was not.

The court found that the SAEK, prepared by a specially trained nurse, falls under the exception for "records made by persons responsible for the investigation or prosecution of the offence." This is because the kit's purpose is to investigate the sexual assault allegation, making the nurse responsible for that part of the investigation.

Consequently, the SAEK is not a "record" under s. 278.1, and no application under s. 278.93 is required for its admission into evidence.

The accused was arrested near the Rideau Canal after officers believed he was smoking marihuana and later found drugs, cash, a folding knife, and a loaded handgun in a satchel.

The court found multiple pre-arrest Charter breaches, including improper attempts to search the accused's fanny pack and failures to comply with ss. 10(a) and 10(b), but held those breaches did not lead to the discovery of the impugned evidence and therefore did not justify exclusion under s. 24(2).

The arrest for marihuana possession and the subsequent search incident to arrest were held lawful.

The accused was convicted on multiple drug, firearm, and recognizance-breach counts, but acquitted on the proceeds count and the folding-knife counts.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant by banging his head against a wall twice and tearing his lip, requiring eight stitches.

The complainant and accused were in a polygamous marriage under Sharia law.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the injury was self-inflicted or caused by someone else.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by her daughter's testimony.

The complainant's evidence was found to be internally inconsistent, inconsistent with his prior affidavit, and motivated by financial and community concerns.

The court concluded the complainant intentionally injured himself after leaving the home and fabricated the assault allegation to gain leverage in family law proceedings and minimize his financial obligations.

The accused, Challa Daoud, sought a bail review following his detention by a Justice of the Peace for 10 firearm-related offences and multiple breaches of prior bail conditions.

The application was based on a purported material change in circumstances, specifically a revised bail plan with two new sureties and increased bond amounts.

The court found no material change in circumstances, noting that merely reshuffling sureties or increasing bond amounts does not suffice.

The court upheld the Justice of the Peace's decision to detain the accused on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing a substantial likelihood of reoffending due to a history of 32 convictions for breaching court orders, serious addiction issues, and the gravity of the firearms offences.