Detention order

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition.

The appellant challenged the Board's decision to issue a detention order instead of a conditional discharge, and argued that two specific conditions of the detention order were overly restrictive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable given the appellant's significant threat to public safety and the joint submission of the parties.

However, the court found two conditions to be unreasonably restrictive: the requirement for "supervised" accommodation and the need for hospital consent for communication with his mother in addition to her own consent.

The appeal was allowed in part, striking the word "supervised" from the accommodation condition and removing the hospital consent requirement from the communication condition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a forensic mental health facility with community privileges, rather than granting his request for a conditional discharge.

The Board denied the conditional discharge due to public safety concerns, emphasizing the need for swift intervention in case of mental state decompensation, despite the appellant's recent stability.

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

The court deferred to the Board's expert opinion, supported by the appellant's psychiatrist, that a detention order was necessary to ensure public protection by allowing intervention before the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act were met, which conditional discharge mechanisms might not adequately provide.

The applicant, Gurjit Dosanjh, sought a review of a detention order issued by a justice of the peace after a bail hearing for possessing a loaded firearm.

The Superior Court found that the bail justice erred by excessively focusing on the release plan and surety suitability, and by failing to adequately consider the weakness of the Crown's case, which lacked evidence connecting the applicant directly to the firearm.

The court emphasized that even in reverse onus situations, the strength of the Crown's allegations must inform the required release plan.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released.

The accused, Marvin Watson, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained for serious drug trafficking and money laundering charges.

The court found errors in law in the original Justice of the Peace's decision regarding the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, and the failure to consider s. 493.2 of the Code.

The court conducted a de novo bail hearing, considering the strong Crown case, the gravity of the offences, and the proposed strict bail plan with multiple sureties and GPS monitoring.

The court concluded that the applicant discharged his onus on all three grounds (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and ordered his release under stringent conditions, including house arrest and no access to communication devices.

The Ontario Review Board failed to fulfill its obligation to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by declining to implement a joint submission for a detention order with community living privileges without considering less onerous alternatives.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordering the implementation of the joint submission with an additional condition for a three-month review by the Board to assess compliance and determine the appropriate disposition.

This decision concerns a 90-day review of a detention order under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Mohammad Khodadad, previously denied bail, sought release.

The court, applying R. v. Myers, confirmed that the onus is not on the accused at this stage, even if a reverse onus applied initially.

Despite this, the court found the accused's continued detention justified on both secondary (public safety due to substantial likelihood of re-offending, strong Crown case, and unreliable surety) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the firearm-related charges, strong Crown case, and significant criminal record).

The application for release was dismissed.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with privileges, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably determined that a detention order was necessary.

The court emphasized that the Board's decision was based on the brutal nature of the index offence and the need for close monitoring, distinguishing it from cases where expediency alone justified a restrictive disposition.

The applicant, David Blackwood, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order for charges including robbery and choking.

The court found a material change in circumstances, triggering a de novo review.

Despite a strong surety and consideration of difficult jail conditions, the court determined that Blackwood's extensive history of non-compliance with court orders and criminal record indicated a substantial likelihood of re-offending.

The application for release was dismissed, and his detention was maintained.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued his detention.

He sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a transfer to a less secure psychiatric facility.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, supported by expert evidence.

The request for transfer was also denied as the proposed facilities lacked all-male units, a necessary condition given the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to consider his significant progress in hospital, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital's prior non-compliance with a restriction of liberty (ROL) order, and an alleged outdated understanding of the Mental Health Act's committal provisions by the treating psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered the appellant's progress and the pandemic's effects, appropriately reprimanded the hospital for its past non-compliance, and was entitled to rely on the psychiatrist's evidence given the record.

The court emphasized the Board's paramount consideration of public safety and the need for a complete record on Mental Health Act committal provisions in future disputes.

The accused, Muhammad Hassan, applied for a bail review after being detained on charges of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and cocaine for trafficking.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, as prior drug-related charges had been acquitted or stayed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed sureties (brother-in-law and family friend) and electronic monitoring plan were insufficient to address the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the current charges, the applicant's history of bail breaches while on prior release, and the limited effectiveness of electronic monitoring without strong supervision.

The accused, Danna Millan, sought a bail review after being detained on tertiary grounds for serious charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and extortion.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 crisis and the addition of a third surety.

The court found that the proposed release plan, including three sureties and strict house arrest, sufficiently addressed the tertiary grounds, and granted release.

The Crown applied for an order to retain seized material for an additional year in a complex criminal investigation involving Fortress Real Capital Inc. and related entities.

The investigation, initiated in 2018, concerned allegations of investor fraud through misrepresentation of property values and investment eligibility.

The court granted the application, finding the investigation to be complex due to the large volume of electronic and hard copy material, the need for professional assistance (computer experts, accountants), and significant delays caused by extensive solicitor-client privilege claims over seized documents.

The court emphasized that while asserting privilege is legitimate, it contributed to the complexity and delay, justifying further detention of the material until June 22, 2021.

The applicant sought a s.520 review of a detention order made on secondary grounds.

The court found several material changes in circumstances since the original show cause hearing, including the COVID-19 pandemic, a new release plan involving residence with his daughter, and the withdrawal of one of the charges.

The court also expressed reservations about the adequacy of the reasons for the initial detention order.

Applying principles favouring release, the court granted the bail review and ordered the applicant's release on specific conditions, emphasizing the importance of proportionality of pre-trial detention, especially given potential trial delays due to the pandemic.

Curtis Elliott applied for a second bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, facing 33 charges related to firearms trafficking.

The application was dismissed.

The court found no material change in circumstances to displace the need for detention on secondary grounds, despite arguments regarding new sureties, electronic monitoring, treatment availability, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the passage of time.

The court acknowledged the pandemic's impact and the principle of proportionality in detention but concluded that the scheduled trial dates mitigated the risk of disproportionate detention, outweighing the substantial public safety risks.

The accused, Derek Horth, sought a review of a detention order issued by a Justice of the Peace.

Horth argued for release based on alleged material changes in circumstances, including an improved surety plan with increased financial commitment and electronic monitoring, and the public health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in custodial facilities.

He also claimed the Justice of the Peace made four errors of law during the initial bail hearing.

The Superior Court found no material changes in circumstances, noting the continued unsuitability of the proposed sureties due to their lack of oversight and understanding of the accused's criminal history.

The court also dismissed the alleged errors of law, affirming the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the Crown's strong case and the necessity of detention on tertiary grounds to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for review was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

The applicant, S.B.S., convicted of drug offenses and serving a sentence, sought a bail review of his continued detention on new charges including human trafficking, breach of recognizance, and drug trafficking.

He proposed a stringent release plan with three sureties and electronic monitoring, citing his nearing parole eligibility and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown opposed, arguing an unacceptable risk to public safety.

The court found that the applicant had not met his onus to establish that continued detention was not justified on the secondary ground, citing the egregious nature of the new allegations, his prior flagrant breach of recognizance, and the inadequacy of the proposed surety plan.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The applicant, T.D., sought a review of a detention order that had been upheld on tertiary grounds.

The application was brought during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court assessed the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, considering a new bail plan that included three sureties (parents and girlfriend) and electronic monitoring.

The court found the proposed plan sufficient to address concerns about public protection, noting the sureties' track records and the applicant's lack of prior breaches.

For the tertiary ground, the court balanced the seriousness of the offence (possessing a loaded firearm) against the applicant's personal circumstances (asthma, heightened COVID-19 risk in detention, no violent record or compliance breaches).

The court concluded that continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for bail review was granted, and the applicant was ordered released on a $320,000 recognizance with conditions including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a new release plan.

The court accepted COVID-19 as a material change warranting a de novo hearing.

However, the court found the proposed release plan, which was identical to the one rejected at the initial bail hearing and involved a surety with a history of ineffective supervision, insufficient to address public safety concerns, especially given the applicant's violent criminal record and history of breaching court orders.

The application for detention review was dismissed, and continued detention was ordered.

The Crown applied to vacate a Justice of the Peace's release order for the accused, Justin Sleeper, and sought his detention pending disposition of charges.

The application was based on new evidence of the accused's non-compliance with prior release conditions and alleged errors in law by the Justice of the Peace regarding the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court found the new evidence sufficient to vacate the release order and ordered the accused's detention, also concluding that the Justice of the Peace erred in assessing the tertiary grounds, particularly concerning the gravity of the offences involving drugs, firearms, and explosives.