Mental health

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 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 mother appealed a trial judge's order making her child a Crown Ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother argued the trial judge erred in assessing her mental health, housing efforts, and the quality of access visits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the mother's ongoing mental health challenges, including auditory hallucinations, and instability posed an overwhelming risk.

Fresh evidence regarding the mother's new housing and medication was admitted but found insufficient to alter the trial judge's findings.

The applicant brought an application for leave to have two of his former solicitors' accounts referred for assessment outside the statutory time periods.

The applicant argued that his mental health issues during the relevant period constituted special circumstances under the Solicitors Act.

The court found the medical evidence provided was insufficient, as it referred to mental health issues predating the solicitors' retainer.

The application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Board relied on uncontroverted evidence from CAMH staff that the appellant could no longer be effectively treated there.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault offences arising from an incident where police responded to a disconnected 911 call at her residence.

The appellant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, locked herself in her bedroom and subsequently attacked an officer with a knife when police entered.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the police were trespassing, finding they acted reasonably under their duty to protect life.

The court allowed the appeal only to the extent of staying one count under the Kienapple principle and amending another count to particularize the use of a weapon.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the one-year-old child be made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she had made progress in addressing protection concerns.

The court found that the mother had failed to adequately address long-standing issues with substance abuse and mental health, and that there was no realistic possibility of the child being returned to her care.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without access.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a trial judge's order making her two children Crown wards without access.

The children had been in care since 2010.

The trial judge found the children would be at risk if returned to the mother due to her mental health, inability to care for them, and a toxic relationship.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the Superior Court judge and upheld the decision, noting the statutory timelines had passed and the children must be placed for adoption.

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 apprehended a 14-year-old boy who had been home-schooled and socially isolated his entire life.

The Society sought a temporary order to keep the child in care pending a psychological assessment, citing severe concerns regarding the mother's mental health, including bizarre delusions and paranoia, and the parents' complete refusal to cooperate with the Society or the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The parents sought the child's return.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of emotional harm and could not be protected by a supervision order, ordering the child to remain in the Society's care.

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 Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary care and custody order for two children, while the mother brought a cross-motion for their immediate return.

The mother had a history of mental health issues and was recently arrested for breaching a probation order.

She had recently entered into a Community Treatment Order.

The court found that the mother's mental health needed to stabilize before the children could be returned.

The Society's motion was granted, placing the children in interim care for three months, and the mother's motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that was more restrictive of his liberty than previous orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a solid evidentiary basis for the disposition and noting the Board's intention to maintain oversight while allowing for the possibility of an earlier hearing if progress was made.

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.