Forensic psychiatry

This decision involves the dangerous offender designation and sentencing of Charles Waddling-Leeson following convictions for multiple violent and sexual offences.

The court found that Waddling-Leeson has a long history of violent and sexual offending, including serious personal injury offences, and has demonstrated a failure to control his sexual impulses.

Expert psychiatric evidence established a very high risk of future sexual and violent recidivism, with diagnoses including antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic traits.

Despite limited engagement with rehabilitative programming and treatment, the offender showed no meaningful insight or remorse.

The court concluded that Waddling-Leeson’s behaviour is intractable and that no lesser sentence than an indeterminate term of imprisonment would adequately protect the public.

Ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and lifelong compliance with the Sex Offender Registration Act were also imposed.

This decision concerns Kay Louise Belk, who stabbed her husband while he slept without any preceding conflict.

She was found to be in a dreamlike state, hearing voices compelling her to act.

The court accepted a joint submission that she was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a confirmed Major Neurocognitive Disorder of moderate severity, caused by multiple etiologies including Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and vascular disease.

The forensic psychiatric assessment concluded that Ms. Belk was unable to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of her act at the time.

The court accordingly rendered an NCR verdict and deferred disposition to the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant, Jerome Williams, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision ordering his continued detention in the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs Division at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

Williams argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge, or alternatively, a transfer to a medium secure facility.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and the necessity of continued detention at Waypoint were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly in light of ongoing concerns about medication compliance and substance use.

The court found Ryan Richard Cunneen not criminally responsible (NCR) for the offences of unlawful act manslaughter and mischief, following a psychiatric assessment and hearing.

The decision reviews the legal and medical standards for NCR under section 16 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of Mr. Cunneen’s longstanding schizoaffective disorder, and the expert opinion that his psychosis rendered him incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the parties’ consent to the NCR verdict after confirming Mr. Cunneen’s informed and voluntary agreement.

The accused, Mark Aninon, pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The court found him not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, for both offences.

The decision was based on an agreed statement of facts establishing the actus reus and expert psychiatric evidence confirming that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing they were wrong.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board for disposition, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration in the NCR regime.

The Crown applied to have the offender, Vezio Cardullo, declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention following his guilty pleas to sexual assault causing bodily harm, overcoming resistance by choking, and uttering threats.

The defence conceded the dangerous offender designation but opposed an indeterminate sentence, proposing a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found the offender to be a dangerous offender under all three pathways of the Criminal Code, citing his extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assaults, and the brutal nature of the predicate offences.

However, based on expert evidence indicating the offender's treatability and motivation for change, the court determined that a determinate sentence of 17 years' imprisonment (9.5 years net from judgment date) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for manslaughter and robbery, appealed his designation as a high-risk accused (HRA) under s. 672.64(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge's discretionary decision, considering the appellant's extensive history of severe mental disorder, repetitive violent behaviour against strangers, and treatment resistance.

The court found the trial judge's conclusion that there was a substantial likelihood of the appellant using violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

The Crown sought to have Adam Nevills declared a Dangerous Offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code following his conviction for sexually assaulting an elderly woman during a break and enter.

The court conducted a two-stage analysis, focusing on designation and sentencing.

While the court found Nevills presented a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, it was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct was intractable, citing some prospect of treatability through a highly structured federal correctional program, the link between his offending and drug use (which could be monitored), and the anticipated effects of aging.

Consequently, the court declined to designate him a Dangerous Offender, instead designating him a Long Term Offender under s. 753(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Mark Roberts, sought a suspension of an Ontario Review Board order directing his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health due to his difficult and harassing behaviour towards female staff at CAMH.

The court applied the specific, higher test under s. 672.76 of the Criminal Code for suspending Board dispositions, which requires compelling reasons to doubt the Board's decision's validity or soundness based on the accused's mental condition, and exceptional circumstances.

The court found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the transfer's impact on his mental condition to justify a suspension, especially considering the severe adverse impact of his conduct on CAMH's operations and staff safety.

The motion for suspension was dismissed.

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.

The accused, Justice Snache, was charged with second-degree murder.

The trial proceeded in two stages: first, to determine guilt based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, and second, to determine criminal responsibility due to mental disorder.

The court found that the Crown proved the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the actus reus and mens rea, based on the agreed facts and the accused's admission.

However, the court then considered the Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) defence under Section 16 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, particularly from Dr. Naidoo, the court found that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral and legal wrongfulness of his actions.

Consequently, the accused was found not criminally responsible for the murder and remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought to exclude evidence of his criminal record (including sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm) and to redact references to these convictions from an expert's forensic psychiatry report.

The court denied the application, finding that while the convictions were prejudicial, they formed a vital basis for the expert's opinion, particularly regarding potential antisocial conduct disorder or sexual paraphilia.

The court emphasized that the jury must have access to the full foundation of expert evidence to assess its weight, even considering Gladue principles for Indigenous accused.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his detention.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant public threat and in not adequately applying Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal granted fresh evidence motions from both parties but dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision reasonable.

The court affirmed that the appellant remained a significant threat due to unstable mental health, risk of medication non-compliance, and substance abuse, which could lead to re-offending.

The refusal of a conditional discharge was also deemed reasonable, as no adequate community treatment plan was in place, despite the consideration of Gladue factors.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for robbery in 2006, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board maintained his detention, removed indirectly supervised community privileges, and denied a transfer to another facility, following his conviction for child pornography.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding its refusal to transfer and removal of community access reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight and ongoing risk, deferring to the Board's expertise.

The Crown applied to have Danyiel Walker declared a dangerous offender under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence or, alternatively, a determinate sentence of 20 years with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

Walker had pleaded guilty to numerous sexual offences against children and child pornography charges, and had a history of similar youth offences and a prior Children's Aid Society intervention.

The court considered expert psychiatric evidence, victim impact statements, and uncharged conduct.

The court found Walker to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive behaviour, persistent aggressive behaviour, and a failure to control sexual impulses, and concluded his conduct was intractable.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding no reasonable expectation that lesser measures would adequately protect the public, citing concerns about the effectiveness of treatment and the limitations of community supervision, particularly regarding internet access.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for a violent assault due to schizophrenia, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (a high-security facility) rather than transferring him to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (a medium-security facility closer to his family).

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Board's disposition.

Given the appellant's history of violent and volatile behavior, fluctuating medication compliance, and St. Joseph's stated inability to manage him, the court found the Board's decision to keep him at Waypoint reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for multiple violent offences and his designation as a dangerous offender, which resulted in an indeterminate sentence.

The primary focus of the appeal was the dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which allows for designation based on the brutal nature of a single offence compelling a conclusion of future unrestrained behaviour.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision, finding no error in the assessment and weighing of conflicting expert psychiatric evidence regarding the appellant's future risk of violent reoffence.

The court affirmed that the sentencing judge was entitled to prefer the Crown's expert's opinion, which considered clinical factors in addition to actuarial tests, and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant constituted a threat to public safety requiring an indeterminate sentence.

The conviction appeal was also dismissed.

The accused, Andy Metatawabin, was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and threatening death after stabbing another patient in a hospital.

The trial proceeded in two stages: identity and criminal responsibility.

The court found the accused was the assailant and guilty of aggravated assault and weapon possession, but not guilty of attempted murder or threatening due to reasonable doubt regarding intent and the alleged threat.

In the second stage, the court assessed whether the accused was Not Criminally Responsible by Reason of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) due to schizophrenia.

Weighing expert psychiatric evidence, the court accepted the defence psychiatrist's opinion that the accused was in a psychotic state at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were morally or legally wrong.

Consequently, the accused was found NCRMD on the aggravated assault and weapon possession charges and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The accused, Adriel Cyrus, was convicted of two sexual assaults.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application seeking an indeterminate sentence.

The court found that Cyrus met all three statutory pathways for dangerous offender designation under the Criminal Code, based on his extensive criminal history, escalating violence, intractable psychiatric disorders (antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder), and poor prognosis for treatment.

The court concluded that an indeterminate sentence was the only adequate measure to protect the public, rejecting the defence's argument for a fixed sentence with a long-term supervision order.

The accused, Chiduben Anthony Okeke, was charged with Aggravated Assault and Failing to Comply with a Recognizance.

Both the Crown and Defence jointly sought a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under sections 16 and 672.34 of the Criminal Code.

Two forensic psychiatrists provided reports concluding that the accused suffered from schizophrenia with paranoid and somatic delusions and auditory hallucinations at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the joint recommendation, finding the accused NCR for both charges, and issued a DNA order.

The judgment also highlighted the severe impact on the victim, PC Andrew Varao, and raised concerns about the lack of adequate supervision for mentally ill individuals released on bail.