Mental health

The parties separated after a 19-year marriage.

The applicant sought ongoing spousal support, a restraining order, and an order for life insurance to secure support.

The respondent, who suffered a severe brain injury prior to the marriage, received a structured settlement annuity and a $1 million lump sum payment.

The applicant claimed inability to work due to mental health issues.

The court found both parties had legitimate health reasons for under-employment and declined to impute income.

The court ordered indefinite spousal support of $4,100 per month based on the respondent's annuity, but declined to include the $1 million lump sum as income available for support, finding it was intended for the respondent's future medical care.

The claims for life insurance and a non-harassment order were dismissed.

The children's aid society sought a finding that two young children were in need of protection and a dispositional order placing them with their father subject to supervision.

The mother had been hospitalized under the Mental Health Act after a crisis and subsequently refused treatment for her diagnosed mental health issues.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the mother's untreated mental illness and lack of insight.

The court placed the children in the care and custody of the father, subject to a nine-month supervision order to ensure the children's special needs were met and to facilitate the mother's access.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder after strangling a man during a sexual encounter in a park.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge made several errors in the jury instructions, specifically regarding the required state of mind for murder, the appellant's mental health, intoxication, the application of reasonable doubt to exculpatory statements, and after-the-fact conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury charge, when read as a whole and in the context of the trial, properly equipped the jury to decide the case and contained no reversible errors.

The appellant appealed from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued a detention order against him, arguing he should have been granted an absolute discharge.

The Board found that the appellant continued to represent a significant threat to public safety and that a conditional discharge would not allow his medical team sufficient time to intervene if he deteriorated.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no foundation for an absolute discharge and upholding the Board's rationale for rejecting a conditional discharge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant, who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, brought a motion to review a single judge's order refusing his request to adjourn his appeal hearing.

The appellant argued the single judge misapprehended facts and considered irrelevant factors, and claimed he could not prepare his factum due to poisonous gas being injected into his condominium.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no basis to interfere with the single judge's decision.

The court noted the statutory obligation to hear such appeals as soon as practicable and that the appellant was not required to file a factum.

The appellant appealed his 18-month custodial sentence for driving while disqualified.

He had an extensive criminal record but also significant mental health challenges and a history of trauma.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and by concluding, without evidence, that he had breached a prior conditional sentence.

Given the appellant's positive progress on bail, his engagement in treatment, and the hardship incarceration would cause his family, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of Brian's Law, which amended the Mental Health Act to expand criteria for involuntary committal and introduce community treatment orders (CTOs).

They argued the law violated section 7 of the Charter by authorizing forced treatment with neuroleptic medication.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of the challenge, finding that the legislation's highly individualized assessment criteria ensured it was not arbitrary, overly broad, or grossly disproportionate.

The court also dismissed claims under sections 9, 10, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 76 months for robbery, dangerous driving, and other offences, arguing the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider his mental health issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the length of the sentence, noting the horrific circumstances of the home invasion robbery and the appellant's extensive criminal record.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to recalculate pre-trial custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio and to vary a non-communication order, permitting the appellant to communicate with his co-accused partner upon her written consent after her sentence expires.

The appellant sued the Government of Nunavut in Ontario for wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge found no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Nunavut was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the appellant argued Ontario was a 'forum of necessity' because returning to Nunavut would trigger severe mental illness symptoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant's mental health challenges did not rise to the exceptional level required for the forum of necessity doctrine, noting that accommodations could be sought in a Nunavut court.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to issue the least onerous and restrictive disposition, seeking a transfer to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct test and reasonably concluded that continued detention at the secure facility was necessary for public protection given the appellant's recent history of violence and recent medication change.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because he did not suffer from a 'disease of the mind' and challenging the constitutionality of the process under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's jurisdiction is statutory and unaffected by medical assertions regarding a 'disease of the mind', which is a legal concept relevant to criminal accountability, not public safety risk assessments.

The Court also rejected the Charter arguments, noting the constitutionality of the process was settled by the Supreme Court in Winko.

The offender pleaded guilty to attempted robbery after pretending to have a gun in his pocket and demanding money from the complainant.

The offender, a youthful individual with paranoid schizophrenia and a minor prior record, spent 20 months on strict house arrest bail conditions.

The court applied R. v. Downes to credit the offender with six months for the stringent bail conditions.

Emphasizing the offender's mental health challenges and rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from Ontario Shores to Waypoint.

The appellant conceded he represented a significant threat to public safety and required a custodial order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to transfer the appellant was reasonable, based on the correct legal test, and entitled to deference.

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography.

Police detained the accused for bizarre behavior and subsequently entered his home without a warrant, despite his explicit instructions not to do so, claiming exigent circumstances.

During the search, police discovered child pornography.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence.

The court found that the warrantless search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights, as there was no genuine urgency or threat to public safety justifying the entry.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, concluding that the serious Charter-infringing conduct outweighed the reliability of the evidence.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion to set aside a chambers judge's decision dismissing her motion for leave to extend time to file a notice of appeal.

The appellant argued the chambers judge misapplied the test for extending time by failing to consider prejudice to the appellant and the justice of the case.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the chambers judge properly applied the test and that the proposed fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the motion, emphasizing the need to view the test through a mental health lens for self-represented litigants with mental health issues.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a two-year-old child who had been in care since birth.

The mother, who had a lengthy history of severe mental health issues, inconsistent compliance with treatment, and limited insight into her condition, sought the return of the child under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother could not consistently meet the child's needs and that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the mother-child relationship was not meaningful and beneficial enough to justify access, which could impair the child's future adoption opportunities.

The appellant appealed orders varying his access to his eight-year-old daughter to supervised access pending a satisfactory mental health evaluation, and imposing a restraining order.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to consider key evidence and the best interests of the child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis of the appellant's mental health and its effect on the child.

The court noted that the appellant had since undergone a medical assessment, and the respondent was prepared to consent to unsupervised access and the removal of the restraining order in the lower court.

The mother appealed two orders: a temporary order denying her request for an adjournment, and a final order granting summary judgment to the Children's Aid Society on a status review application.

The summary judgment order continued the placement of the children with their father subject to Society supervision and denied the mother access.

The mother argued she was denied procedural fairness and that there were genuine issues for trial regarding her compliance with previous court orders requiring mental health treatment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding the motion judge made no errors of law or fact, the mother failed to provide evidence of compliance with the previous orders, and there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his detention with privileges for supervised community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence, failed to consider a conditional discharge, and erred by not ordering an independent psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable, noting that a conditional discharge was inappropriate given the need for supervised accommodation, and agreeing that an independent assessment was unnecessary.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of a child with complex medical needs.

The child was apprehended after the father, who had primary care, was arrested for domestic assault and exhibited untreated mental health issues.

The child's health had significantly deteriorated in the father's care but stabilized in foster care.

The mother sought placement of the child with her, but the court noted her history of instability, daily marijuana use, and the child's medical requirements.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with access to the mother at the society's discretion.