Not criminally responsible

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual offences involving a child, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining his detention with limited privileges.

He argued the Board misapprehended his request for indirectly supervised community access, provided inadequate reasons, and issued an unreasonable disposition.

The Court of Appeal held the Board understood the dual nature of his requests and sufficiently explained its reasoning.

The psychiatric evidence demonstrated that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and required continuous supervision, particularly given the risk of reoffending against children.

The Board’s refusal to grant broader indirectly supervised community passes was therefore reasonable.

The accused pleaded not guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing the victim in the neck.

The defence argued the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, calling a forensic psychiatrist who testified the accused was suffering from a psychotic episode and command hallucinations.

The court rejected the expert evidence, finding it relied on inadequate information and that the accused's statements to police demonstrated he had the capacity to know the act was morally wrong.

The accused was found criminally responsible and guilty of aggravated assault.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with probation, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board imposing a detention order with community living privileges.

He argued the ORB applied the wrong legal test and should have granted a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB applied the correct test and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to manage the appellant's risk, ensure medication compliance, and allow for expeditious return to the hospital if his condition decompensated.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and attempt to choke, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering a conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he remained a significant risk to public safety was unreasonable and overly focused on potential medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating the appellant would likely discontinue treatment if absolutely discharged, which would increase his risk of violent behaviour.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder after stabbing two strangers.

At trial, he did not contest the stabbings but claimed he intended to commit suicide.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh psychiatric evidence indicating he suffered from catatonic schizophrenia at the time of the offences.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it met the Palmer criteria.

Based on the unanimous and uncontradicted opinions of three forensic psychiatrists, the Court found the appellant established the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and verdicts of not criminally responsible were substituted.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible confinement and assault due to a delusional disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention on the Secure Forensic Unit at CAMH.

He sought a transfer to the less secure General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable because the appellant's refusal to engage with his treatment team prevented the hospital from assessing his risk, and the higher staff-to-patient ratio on the secure unit actually allowed him more escorted passes.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Following a deterioration in his mental state, he was readmitted to a secure forensic assessment unit.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing and found that his continued detention without usual privileges violated his s. 7 Charter rights, ordering the hospital to pay costs under s. 24(1).

The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal, holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the detention met the least onerous and least restrictive standard, and the Board lacked jurisdiction to award costs as a Charter remedy.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board dismissing his Charter application.

He alleged that a delay in holding his annual disposition review hearing violated his rights under s. 7 of the Charter and sought costs, damages, and declaratory relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the minor delay did not significantly deprive the appellant of his liberty or security of the person.

The Court also held that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to grant costs, damages, or declaratory relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter, and is not required to adopt an inquisitorial approach when hearing Charter applications.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and appealed a hybrid detention disposition made by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in finding he posed a significant risk to public safety and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of significant risk was supported by the evidence, including the unanimous opinion of the treatment team.

The Court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding the late delivery of a hospital report and alleged bias.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found he posed a significant threat to public safety and denied him an absolute discharge.

The hospital and treatment team supported an absolute discharge, noting that while the appellant suffered from schizophrenia, he was not violent and could be managed under the civil mental health system.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it relied on speculative correlations between drug use, mental illness symptoms, and risk to the public, while ignoring the unique circumstances of the index offence and the appellant's lack of violent history.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was substituted.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a secure unit.

He sought an absolute discharge, conditional discharge, or transfer to a general unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that an ongoing six-month review by the Board would soon provide a decision based on current medical information.

However, the Court emphasized the Board's obligation to properly determine whether the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and expressed deep concern over the hospital's delay in transferring the appellant to the secure unit as ordered.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition continuing his detention in a hospital.

The appellant argued he did not suffer from a mental illness and that the Board's reasons were insufficient to establish he posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of mental illness but agreed the Board's reasons were insufficient, particularly regarding its reliance on uncorroborated hearsay evidence and its failure to explain why the threat was deemed 'significant' despite contrary psychiatric evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The appellant, who was unrepresented, pleaded guilty to theft, threatening to use a weapon, and uttering a death threat.

Over his objection, the Crown requested an assessment for criminal responsibility.

The trial judge held a summary hearing, admitted the assessment report, and entered not criminally responsible (NCR) verdicts for the assault and threat charges without informing the appellant of his procedural rights.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to ensure the unrepresented appellant understood his rights to testify, call evidence, or cross-examine the report's author, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several offences including assaulting police officers, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had ordered his detention in a secure forensic unit, rejecting a joint request by the appellant and the hospital for a hybrid order that would allow discretion to transfer him to a general unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was supported by evidence of the appellant's continuing behavioural issues and risk to public safety, and that the Board properly applied the least onerous and least restrictive test.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for threatening his nephew.

At the Ontario Review Board hearing, both the hospital and the Crown supported an absolute discharge, but the Board imposed a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board applied the wrong legal test.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the Board erred in its interpretation of the 'significant threat to the safety of the public' threshold under s. 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Board improperly relied on 'psychological stress' rather than significant psychological harm resulting from criminal conduct, and applied a standard that was too low by finding a physical response 'could not be ruled out'.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was granted.

The appellant, who suffered from a severe mental illness, was found marginally fit to stand trial and subsequently pleaded guilty to several offences, including common nuisance.

The trial judge entered findings of guilt and later found the appellant not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) without conducting a plea inquiry.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the guilty pleas, findings of guilt, and NCRMD verdicts, holding that the trial judge's failure to conduct a plea inquiry vitiated the pleas given the appellant's mental state and lack of understanding of the consequences.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) eight years prior, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a maximum security facility.

He argued the Board erred by refusing to order his transfer to another psychiatric facility for an independent assessment, citing a change in his psychiatric diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in concluding that a transfer was not necessary for an appropriate disposition and that treatment and assessment could continue at his current facility.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board erred in its application of the Winko test by failing to properly assess whether the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, specifically regarding the risk of serious physical or psychological harm.

The appeal was allowed and the matter returned to the Board for rehearing.

The appellant was convicted of threatening and criminally harassing his former common law wife.

Following the finding of guilt, defence counsel requested a psychiatric assessment, which led to a finding that the appellant was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) due to alcohol-related dementia and delusions.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the NCRMD finding was unreasonable and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer raised his mental state without instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the NCRMD verdict was reasonable and that the appellant failed to prove his counsel acted without instructions or that the counsel's performance resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant was found guilty of six counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown subsequently applied to have her found not criminally responsible (NCR).

On the day of the NCR hearing, the self-represented appellant was provided with a lengthy psychiatric report and requested a two-week adjournment to retain counsel.

The trial judge refused the adjournment, forcing the appellant to proceed unrepresented.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the refusal of the adjournment in these circumstances undermined the appearance of fairness and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

A new trial was ordered.