Not criminally responsible

The appellant, Richard Pereira, was convicted of second degree murder in the death of Kathryn Horne.

At trial, the defence conceded that Pereira killed Horne, but argued he was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the trial judge erred in applying the NCR test, in analyzing post-offence conduct, and in considering expert evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the trial judge’s approach to the NCR defence, the use of post-offence conduct, or the treatment of expert evidence.

The appellant, Amy Cox, appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible by reason of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) made by Justice Kinsella.

The appeal focused on alleged procedural unfairness in the NCRMD process and the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons.

The Superior Court found that, although there was evidence to support the NCRMD finding, the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons explaining why the evidence justified the verdict.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, Amy Smith Cox, appealed a detention order of the Ontario Review Board that found she continued to pose a significant threat of serious harm to the public and imposed a no-contact provision with her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the significant threat finding but allowed the appeal in part regarding the no-contact provision, varying it to permit contact with her father at the discretion of the treatment team.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed the Ontario Review Board’s decision to continue his conditional discharge and deny his Charter application for an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board’s assessment of risk and refusal to grant an absolute discharge were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also found no Charter breach, as the Board’s decision was based on public safety, not resource limitations.

The court considered whether Seedjan Sulaiman Khail, who stabbed his father to death, was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The only issue in dispute was whether the accused’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong.

After reviewing the psychiatric evidence and the accused’s history, the court found that while Mr. Sulaiman Khail suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the offence, he did not lack the capacity to know that his actions were wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of society.

The court found him guilty of second-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Padraig Teggart from a decision designating him as a "high risk accused" (HRA) under the Criminal Code following a finding of not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The court found that the application judge applied the correct legal standard and properly considered the evidence, including expert opinions and statutory factors, in concluding that there was a substantial likelihood that Mr. Teggart would use violence endangering the life or safety of others.

The decision affirms the exceptional and sparing use of the HRA designation and the heightened risk threshold required.

The appellant, Sami Kazi, appealed the October 24, 2024 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him Not Criminally Responsible and ordered his detention with conditions.

After a subsequent Board hearing in January 2025 resulted in a new disposition, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot, as the original disposition was no longer operative.

The court found no live controversy remained and declined to exercise discretion to hear the appeal, noting the issues were fact-specific and overtaken by events.

The court considered whether Daniel Pestill should be declared a high-risk accused following a finding of not criminally responsible for the death of Michael Ryan, and also determined the appropriate sentence for various drug and firearm offences.

The court reviewed expert psychiatric evidence, statutory criteria, and relevant case law, ultimately designating Pestill as a high-risk accused and imposing a six-year sentence for the drug and gun offences, to be served in a hospital.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the factors for high-risk designation and the principles of sentencing for serious drug and firearm offences.

This decision concerns an appeal by Iesha Mitchell from a detention order imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had found that, although Mitchell could live in the community with certain privileges, her housing required approval by the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and that the Mental Health Act alone would not be sufficient to manage her risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board’s reasoning, holding that the evidence supported the need for approved housing and a detention order, given the subtlety of Mitchell’s decompensation and the need for prompt intervention.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court considered whether Jheidon Serieaux, convicted of first-degree murder, should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

After a bifurcated hearing, the court found that Mr. Serieaux suffered from schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offence, with persistent psychotic symptoms, and that he was not malingering.

The court preferred the evidence of Dr. Komer and Dr. Grimes over Dr. Gojer, concluding that Mr. Serieaux was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act or know that it was morally wrong.

Mr. Serieaux was found NCRMD and remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

The court considered whether Devret Clarke, who shot and killed Gars-Ara Kourjakian, was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

The evidence established that Clarke suffered from schizophrenia and was actively psychotic at the time of the offence.

The main issue was whether his mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was morally wrong.

After reviewing the evidence, including psychiatric opinions and Clarke’s own testimony, the court found that Clarke’s delusions led him to believe his actions were justified both by his own moral code and by societal norms, if society understood his experiences.

The court concluded that Clarke was NCR.

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 sentenced Mouhamad Al Jalmoud for two counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and one count of dangerous operation causing bodily harm, following a jury trial.

The jury found him not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for three related counts of failing to stop after an accident.

The court reviewed the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

Al Jalmoud was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months in custody (after credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions), with a 15-year driving prohibition to follow, and a DNA order.

The decision discusses the impact of mental illness on moral culpability, the range of sentences for similar offences, and the significance of both aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court considered whether Charles Duku was criminally responsible for arson and mischief, following a trial in which he was found guilty.

After conviction, the Crown sought a verdict of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under section 672.34 of the Criminal Code, based on psychiatric evidence that Mr. Duku was suffering from active psychosis at the time of the offence.

The court accepted the expert evidence and the respondent’s consent, finding that Mr. Duku was not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

The court found Dylan Sherief not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the second-degree murder of Nicola Maiorano.

The decision reviews the legal test for criminal responsibility, the psychiatric evidence, and the facts of the case, concluding that Mr. Sherief’s schizoaffective disorder rendered him incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that Mr. Sherief be remanded to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

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.

Nathaniel White, found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that removed his community living and 30-day pass privileges.

The ORB had accepted his request for a lateral transfer to another facility but removed the privileges based on clinical opinion that community living was not realistic due to his recent decompensation and need for a slower, more supported approach to treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision was not unreasonable or based on an error of law, distinguishing it from a case where there was a misapprehension of information.

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.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention.

The primary issue was whether he should be transferred to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board applied the correct legal standard of "least onerous and least restrictive" and that its decision, based on the assessment of expert evidence regarding the appellant's readiness for transfer, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the continued detention.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) to continue his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), rejecting a joint submission for transfer to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health.

The appellant argued the ORB breached procedural fairness by not giving express notice of its intent to reject the joint submission and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the ORB's "significantly probing" questions during the hearing provided sufficient implicit notice and that its decision to reject the transfer was reasonable, as the evidence did not support the claimed benefits of transfer or a treatment impasse at CAMH.

The appeal was dismissed.