Kathryn A. Hunt

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code regarding the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 14, 2019.

Although the parties agreed the appeal was moot, there was a dispute regarding the wording of the endorsement.

The court agreed with the appellant's proposed wording and dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that a subsequent Ontario Review Board hearing determined the appellant should be transferred to St. Joseph's Healthcare in Hamilton due to a treatment impasse with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board order detaining her in the General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for charges of possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault.

She sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety based on her active psychiatric symptoms, stated intention to cease medication if released, vulnerability to opiate-based medications, and history of medication non-adherence.

The court found the Board's reasoning sound and the disposition reasonable and necessary.

An NCR accused appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretionary community living privileges.

The appellant argued he posed no significant risk to public safety, citing 15 years without violent behaviour, and sought an absolute discharge or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly considered all relevant factors under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and reasonably concluded the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his mental illness, lack of insight, substance abuse issues, and criminal history.

The court emphasized that absence of violent behaviour does not eliminate risk of serious psychological harm, and that Part XX.1 is designed to protect public safety before violence occurs.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board detention order with privileges up to the possibility of community accommodation.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision on three grounds: insufficient reasons, procedural error due to gaps in the record, and failure to adequately address why a conditional discharge was not the least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's reasoning, no procedural defect, and that the detention order fell within a range of reasonable outcomes based on evidence of ongoing mental illness, delusional thinking, substance abuse, medication non-compliance, and lack of insight into symptoms.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that upheld a finding of his incapacity to make decisions regarding treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board misinterpreted the capacity test under s. 4 of the Health Care Consent Act, failed to consider a breakdown in the patient-physician relationship, and misapprehended evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, based on ample evidence, and correctly applied the legal test for capacity, including the requirement for corroboration of the physician's evidence.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, detained at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a warrant of committal, challenged the Board's May 8, 2018 disposition imposing a detention order on a general secure unit and refusing community living privileges.

The appellant did not contest the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to public safety but argued the conditions were not the least onerous and restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable based on the evidence regarding the appellant's mental illness, risk of reoffending, and the evidentiary basis for the alcohol prohibition condition.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 10, 2018.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for possession of weapons dangerous, sought a conditional discharge or alternatively a new hearing.

The Board maintained a detention order in the general forensic unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with relaxed reporting requirements.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable due to inadequate reasons regarding whether the appellant's risk to the public could be managed under a conditional discharge.

The court directed the Board to reconsider the disposition at its next hearing with proper consideration of relevant factors, including mechanisms for securing attendance at hospital and the timing of any intervention.

The appellant, suffering from schizoaffective disorder, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication.

During the Board hearing, the appellant discharged his counsel and represented himself despite experiencing significant delusions.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the appellant had a constitutional right to represent himself, the Board denied him procedural fairness by failing to appoint his discharged counsel as amicus curiae to assist the Board in ensuring a fair hearing.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the proper interpretation of section 23 of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 regarding "necessary and ancillary treatment." The appellants, both found incapable of consenting to primary psychiatric treatment, challenged both their incapacity findings and the Board's practice of making separate findings of incapacity for ancillary treatments.

The Court of Appeal clarified that once a person is found incapable of consenting to primary treatment, section 23 automatically authorizes ancillary treatment without requiring a separate incapacity finding, even if the person is capable of consenting to the ancillary treatment.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 2, 2018, which maintained the same order as the previous year.

The Board concluded that despite the appellant's positive steps, events in spring 2017 and the appellant's lack of insight demonstrated that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's conclusion was open to it on the evidence and that there was no material misapprehension of evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

An appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 24, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for robbery in 2010, challenged the Board's decision to impose a detention disposition rather than a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge with treatment conditions could manage his risk as effectively as detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal test and that its conclusion was reasonable given the appellant's recent deterioration, non-compliance with conditions, medication non-adherence, and the limitations of the Mental Health Act in managing his risk.

An application by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and Dr. Jennifer Nguyen for the committal of a 16-year-old youth (JS) to the secure treatment program at Syl Apps for 180 days.

The youth had experienced significant trauma, including the death of her biological mother by overdose and a knife-point robbery.

She suffered from multiple mental health disorders and had made numerous suicide attempts.

The parents and Syl Apps administrator consented to the order, but the youth opposed it.

The court found that all five criteria under section 117(1) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, but reduced the committal term to 90 days due to insufficient evidence regarding the length of commitment and the absence of a discharge plan.

The appellant, Mildred Micah, appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board.

The first decision confirmed the validity of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) issued in respect of Ms. Micah.

The second dismissed an application to review a finding that Ms. Micah lacked the capacity to consent to treatment under a Community Treatment Plan (CTP), due to a six-month time limit prescribed by the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

The court reviewed the Board's interpretation of the time limit on a standard of reasonableness, concluding that the Board's decision was reasonable and correct, as the term "treatment" consistently includes a CTP for both review applications and time limits.

The court also found the Board's conclusion that all statutory criteria for the CTO were met to be reasonable, based on evidence that Ms. Micah would likely suffer substantial mental deterioration without the CTO.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, an involuntary psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his treating physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic and ancillary medications.

The appellant argued the Board misapplied the test for capacity and improperly shifted the burden of proof.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably applied the statutory test and Supreme Court jurisprudence in concluding the appellant's mental disorder prevented him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing treatment.