Kathleen Mary Malkovich

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault in 2007.

The accused has a complex psychiatric history, including diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, borderline personality disorder, substance use disorders, and schizophrenia.

Her condition fluctuates significantly, often deteriorating following substance use, leading to aggressive and threatening behaviour.

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

The existing detention order was continued, with a modification to remove the restriction that her cannabis use comply with lower-risk guidelines, as she is incapable of following them.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with intent to resist arrest and assaulting a peace officer.

The accused is diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder.

The hospital and the Crown recommended continuing the current detention order, which the accused supported.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, lack of insight into substance use, and the risk of deterioration without supervision.

The current detention order was continued with the same terms and conditions.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on several criminal charges, including robbery and assault with a weapon.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine his current fitness.

Based on the evidence of his treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused now understands the charges, plea options, and the roles of trial participants, and can meaningfully instruct counsel.

The Board concluded the accused is fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court with a Keep Fit Order and a Detention Order.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, was subject to an annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the existing Detention Disposition, while the accused sought a Conditional Discharge and the removal of a condition prohibiting cannabis use.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to their fragile mental state, recent decline in functioning, and lack of insight regarding cannabis use.

The Board concluded that a Conditional Discharge was inappropriate as the hospital requires the ability to rapidly readmit the accused if their mental state decompensates.

The Detention Disposition was continued on the same terms.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing and a restriction of liberties hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been readmitted to the hospital multiple times due to suicidal ideation and decompensation in the community.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, continued the detention order, and concluded that the restriction of his liberty was warranted.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community since 2022 and recently transitioned to independent living.

The Board found that while the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, his risk could be managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge Disposition with conditions including medication adherence, substance abstinence, and a no-contact order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder, had been living in the community and maintaining stability, medication compliance, and abstinence from substances.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but that a Conditional Discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused, R.S., charged with sexual assault, was self-represented.

Due to late disclosure, the trial was adjourned, bringing it perilously close to the Jordan presumptive ceiling.

During the trial, after the complainant's cross-examination by s. 486.3 counsel, the court was asked to appoint the s. 486.3 counsel as amicus curiae for the remainder of the trial, which the Crown opposed.

The court appointed amicus curiae, finding it essential to discharge judicial functions, ensure the trial concluded within a reasonable time, and address complex issues like the reception of witness evidence, potential racial bias arguments, and police investigation failures, thereby preventing further delays that could lead to a Jordan application.

The accused, R.S., an environmental aid at Hamilton General Hospital, was charged with sexual assault after a patient, L.R., alleged he touched her vagina while she was recovering from a car accident.

The Crown and the accused presented conflicting accounts of the events.

The court found both the complainant and the accused to be credible witnesses.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court determined that its inability to resolve the conflicting credible evidence about the alleged crime left it in a state of reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role as a secondary participant in a fatal shooting.

The Crown sought 16-18 years, while the defence sought 13-14 years.

The court determined the appropriate sentence was 15 years.

The court awarded 10 years of standard pre-sentence credit (1.5 to 1) plus an additional 6 months of enhanced credit due to harsh pre-trial custody conditions, including frequent lockdowns and COVID-19 impacts, leaving 4.5 years to be served.

The applicant, charged with fraud related to an alleged RRSP stripping scheme, brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 24(2) to exclude evidence seized from various financial institutions and his residence.

He argued the affiant made intentional misrepresentations and omissions in the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

The court conducted a Garofoli review and found that, despite some minor errors and one misrepresentation regarding a CRA auditor's opinion, there remained sufficient evidence upon which the issuing justices could have granted the authorizations.

The court also found the applicant had a negligible expectation of privacy in the bank and business records.

The application was dismissed, and the court noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

The accused brought a pre-trial severance application seeking to split five sexual offence counts involving two youthful family-member complainants into separate trials.

Applying the severance principles under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the governing framework from Last, the court balanced prejudice to the accused against the public interest in a single, efficient trial.

The court found a significant factual and legal nexus between the counts, including intertwined disclosure evidence and common post-offence conduct, and held that the Crown had a viable foundation for count-to-count similar fact evidence under Handy.

The judge concluded that severance was not required in the interests of justice and dismissed the application.

This voir dire ruling addresses the admissibility of inculpatory statements made by Joshua Barreira to police following his arrest for first-degree murder.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to police oppression (cold, sickness, hunger, exhaustion, denial of right to silence) and inducements related to his wife and brother's arrests.

The court found no oppression, noting Barreira was a "savvy and experienced individual" who understood his rights and repeatedly attempted to negotiate a deal.

The court also determined that the idea of a false confession to protect family members was self-generated by Barreira, and the police officer's actions did not constitute improper inducements.

Consequently, the statements were deemed voluntary and admissible at trial, subject to editing out references to Barreira's criminal record.