Detention order

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for serious sexual assault and assault charges, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention order.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge, arguing it was the least onerous and restrictive option given his recent progress in managing his mental disorder and substance use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly the psychiatrist's view that a detention order was necessary for rapid intervention in case of relapse, given the appellant's history of substance abuse and associated violence.

The court emphasized the Board's obligation to protect public safety and the high standard for overturning Board decisions.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2016, appealed a 2024 disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention.

The ORB concluded he remained a significant threat to public safety primarily due to ongoing cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal found that the ORB's reasons did not adequately explain how the legal test for "significant threat to the safety of the public" was met, particularly regarding the causal link between cannabis use, mental state deterioration, and a substantial risk of serious criminal harm.

The court noted the appellant's medication adherence and lack of recent violent behaviour, questioning the ORB's conclusion that intervention was the sole reason for no deterioration.

The appeal was allowed, the ORB's disposition set aside, and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant, Geoffrey Le Feuvre, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), arguing the Board's finding of significant public threat was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the appeal moot because a subsequent urgent hearing resulted in a new disposition transferring the appellant to a different facility with community living privileges.

The court declined to hear the appeal on its merits due to the material change in circumstances and ordered an expedited new hearing by the Board to assess the significant threat issue based on the appellant's current situation.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for aggravated assault and weapon possession, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order at a forensic hospital.

He argued the Board made material factual errors and that he should be granted an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the Board made mischaracterizations of the evidence, these errors did not impact the reasonableness of its risk assessment or disposition.

The court concluded that the Board understood the correct factual context when its reasons were read as a whole, and that the detention order remained the least onerous and restrictive disposition consistent with public safety, given the appellant's ongoing substance abuse and lack of insight into his mental illness.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her detention in custody and rehabilitation at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

Previously, she had been on a conditional discharge but exhibited declining mental stability and inconsistent attendance at appointments.

Despite recommendations from her physician, hospital counsel, and the Crown for a continued conditional discharge, the ORB found she posed a significant public safety threat due to marked deterioration in her stability and past threatening behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's decision as reasonable, emphasizing the ORB's expertise and the need to consider future treatment beyond mere reattendance mechanisms.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for theft, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order with community privileges, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board found that an absolute discharge would pose a significant public safety threat due to likely medication non-compliance and substance abuse leading to decompensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The court rejected arguments that the Board failed to consider the appellant's improvements or misapprehended evidence regarding substance use, emphasizing that appellate review is limited to reasonableness and does not involve reweighing evidence.

Fresh evidence regarding recent decompensation reinforced the Board's conclusion.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental illness, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition maintaining his detention at a high-security psychiatric facility.

The appellant argued the ORB failed to consider all statutory factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, recognize a treatment impasse, and exercise its inquisitorial and supervisory powers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court held that the ORB properly considered all relevant factors, reasonably declined to find a treatment impasse given the facility's ongoing efforts to find treatment options, and adequately fulfilled its supervisory responsibilities.

Mark Sheldon Roberts appealed a 2020 Ontario Review Board disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the 2020 disposition had been superseded by a 2021 disposition, and new criminal charges and re-admission to a secure forensic unit at CAMH had rendered the factual record stale.

The court reiterated the principle of not deciding moot cases, especially in Review Board matters where no effective remedy can be given for a spent disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, a high-secure facility.

The Board had recommended a transfer to a high-security facility in Quebec but rejected the appellant's request for an interim transfer to a medium-security facility in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's history of elopement, violent behaviour, and refusal of medication, which posed a significant threat to public safety.

The court upheld the Board's acceptance of the psychiatrist's opinion that the appellant was not suitable for a medium-security transfer at that time, emphasizing public safety as the paramount consideration.

The applicants sought the return of seized cash and property under s. 490(9)(c) of the Criminal Code after the initial detention order expired.

The police seized $43,390 CAD and $2 USD, along with a Louis Vuitton pouch and hat, during an inventory search following a drinking and driving investigation.

The applicants provided affidavits asserting lawful ownership, with one applicant claiming the majority of the cash as rental income and the other claiming a smaller portion and the personal items.

Despite suspicious circumstances noted by the Crown regarding the money's storage and the vehicle's VIN, the court found the applicants' unchallenged evidence of lawful ownership on a balance of probabilities to be credible.

The application for the return of property was granted.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention at a high secure unit.

He sought a transfer to a less restrictive medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable given the appellant's continued threat to public safety, the unsuitability of other facilities due to risk management concerns and long waitlists, and recent aggressive incidents.

The court affirmed that reweighing evidence is not its role in reviewing Board decisions.

The applicant, Landyn Delaney, sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The original Justice of the Peace had found detention justified on tertiary grounds.

The Superior Court found no error of law in the Justice of the Peace's application of the tertiary ground test but identified a material change in circumstances based on new evidence, including a more stringent release plan with two sureties (father and brother) and electronic monitoring.

The court concluded that, with the new plan, a reasonable member of the public would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the applicant were released, considering his lack of prior record, youth, and the principle of restraint.

The application was allowed, and the applicant was released on strict conditions.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) for a fatal stabbing, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue a detention order, arguing that a conditional discharge was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court noted the appellant's history of non-compliance with treatment, tendency to minimize negative stressors, and the very short period he had been in the community after many years of confinement.

The ORB's decision to maintain the detention order was deemed a reasonable outcome to test the appellant in the community and ensure public safety.

Mr. Ojaghi appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board, arguing it was unreasonable and seeking a conditional discharge.

He also challenged the Board's removal of a travel provision from his previous disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable and necessary for public safety given the applicant's non-compliance with medication.

However, the court found that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by removing the travel provision without notice or inviting submissions, and therefore reinstated that provision.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order.

The Court of Appeal found the Board erred in its application of the "significant risk" test, concluding there was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a detention order and denied an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued the Board erred in failing to grant an absolute discharge, giving weight to previous appellate findings, and considering the vigour of counsel's submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, based on expert evidence of likely relapse and criminal conduct without supervision.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences against intimate partners, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

He argued the ORB erred in finding him a significant threat and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge, emphasizing a four-year period of stability while on bail.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to his psychiatric history, ongoing symptoms, medication non-compliance, and impaired insight.

The court also found that a detention order was necessary given the inadequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage his risk, and that the ORB had implicitly considered and rejected a conditional discharge.

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.

The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed two appeals concerning the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) jurisdiction to conduct disposition review hearings by videoconference without the accused's consent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant, found not criminally responsible (NCR), objected to a virtual hearing.

The ORB proceeded without consent and subsequently ordered her detention.

The Superior Court quashed the ORB's jurisdictional ruling via certiorari.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal of the certiorari order, affirming that the ORB lacked statutory authority under the Criminal Code to compel virtual attendance without consent.

It also allowed the applicant's appeal of the detention order, finding it void due to the ORB's violation of procedural rules (Rule 43.03(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Rules) by proceeding while a certiorari application was pending.

The court emphasized that the Criminal Code implies a right to physical presence unless consent is given for virtual attendance, and that the pandemic does not justify exceeding statutory jurisdiction.

This is a bail review application under s.520 of the Criminal Code, seeking to overturn a detention order.

The applicant argued for a material change in circumstances based on a proposed change in suretyship, an increased surety commitment, and the addition of electronic monitoring.

The court found that the electronic monitoring was not a material change and that the proposed new surety, despite being more senior, was not in a better position to supervise than previous sureties.

The court concluded that the changes did not address the original reason for detention, which was a loss of public confidence in the administration of justice due to the applicant's repeated breaches of release conditions.

The application was dismissed.