Not criminally responsible

The accused was charged with second degree murder after admitting to causing the death of the victim.

The defence raised not criminally responsible (NCR) by reason of mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused suffered from Cannabis-Induced Psychotic Disorder exacerbated by prolonged substance use, and that his internal predisposition — including a vulnerable brain, prior episodes of psychosis, and features of borderline and antisocial personality disorder — contributed causally to his mental state at the time of the offence.

Applying the holistic approach from R. v. Stone and R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, the court found the drug-induced psychosis constituted a disease of the mind and that the continuing danger factor was satisfied.

A verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder was entered.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after stabbing a stranger who was trying to help him.

The accused conceded he caused the death but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the psychotic episode was solely substance-induced due to the accused's heavy drug use.

The court applied the holistic approach, considering the internal cause and continuing danger factors, and found the accused suffered from a pre-existing delusional disorder that was operative at the time of the offence.

The court concluded the accused lacked the capacity to know his act was morally wrong and rendered a verdict of not criminally responsible.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a respondent charged with committing indictable offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a terrorist group under section 83.2 of the Criminal Code.

The respondent was the sole member of his own terrorist group.

The trial judge found the respondent not guilty of the section 83.2 offences but found him not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (schizophrenia) for the underlying predicate offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation that section 83.2 does not apply to a lone wolf terrorist acting as the sole member of a terrorist group, as the provision contemplates a bilateral relationship between the principal committing the offence and a separate terrorist group.

The court dismissed the appeal.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention of an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused at a forensic psychiatric hospital with community living privileges.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the detention order remained necessary and appropriate given the appellant's ongoing mental health and substance use issues, poor insight into her condition, vulnerability to relapse, and recent threatening behaviour.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the Board failed to consider relevant factors including her sobriety, age-related reduction in violence risk, negative effects of hospitalization, and commitment to treatment compliance.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his mother in a fire.

Following conviction, he raised a defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR).

The jury rejected the NCR defence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's answer to a jury question regarding whether the appellant would be eligible for insurance proceeds if found NCR.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that it could not consider the financial consequences of an NCR verdict.

The court held that the error was not harmless and that the curative proviso was unavailable.

The conviction was set aside and a new second-stage trial on the NCR issue was ordered.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition dated September 10, 2018, concerning an NCR accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Board's imposition of a detention order in place of a conditional discharge, arguing the detention was not necessary and appropriate and was not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant had absconded from her group home, breached conditions by using substances, and demonstrated diminished insight into her illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes given the appellant's increased risk profile and the need for hospital flexibility in managing her care and community placement.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that continued a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's analysis was unreasonable because it improperly focused on the appellant's lack of insight into his medical condition rather than conducting a holistic assessment of whether he posed a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm to the public.

The Board also failed to adequately address conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's insight and did not provide sufficient evidentiary analysis of the relevant factors.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The Crown appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board regarding a respondent found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for violent offences committed at a Canadian Forces recruiting centre.

The respondent was diagnosed with schizophrenia and found incapable of knowing his conduct was morally wrong.

The Board ordered detention on a secure forensic unit but granted limited indirectly supervised privileges to attend a local college for educational purposes within a two-kilometre radius of the hospital.

The Crown challenged both the indirect supervision privilege and the Board's failure to prohibit all contact with uniformed military personnel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding the Board did not err in law and its disposition was reasonable.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on grounds of mental disorder appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition placing him on a detention order with removal of an alcohol prohibition condition.

The appellant argued the detention order was more restrictive than his previous conditional discharge and that the Board's objectives could have been achieved through maintaining the conditional discharge while removing only the alcohol prohibition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that when viewed holistically with the privileges and prohibitions included, the detention order was actually less restrictive and was justified to allow implementation of a Community Treatment Order and to manage the appellant's risk to public safety.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 21, 2018, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant argued that he no longer posed a significant danger to public safety due to improved insight into his mental illness, medication compliance, and stable employment and housing.

However, the court found the Board's concerns about recent cocaine use were reasonable given the appellant's history of manic episodes preceded by cocaine use and associated medication non-compliance.

The court allowed the appeal on the basis of transcription errors in the Board's reasons, which confused the appellant with another hospital patient and relied on irrelevant material.

A new hearing was ordered to take place as the appellant's annual review hearing in February 2019.

An appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at Brockville Mental Health Centre following a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the change in his diagnosis from schizophrenia to antisocial personality disorder and the role of cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable based on the revised diagnosis, evidence linking cannabis use to psychotic symptoms, a history of substance abuse, and a pattern of aggressive and violent behavior.

Appeal from conviction for two counts of first degree murder.

The appellant killed two friends and attempted suicide, raising a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) defence.

The trial judge convicted after finding the appellant had the capacity to know that society would regard his actions as morally wrong, despite suffering from a mental disorder.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal: (1) misinterpretation of "knowing that it was wrong" under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code; (2) misapprehension of evidence regarding psychotic state; (3) request to recognize diminished responsibility as a partial defence; and (4) request to recognize suicide pact as a partial defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that detained an NCR accused who had been under the Board's jurisdiction for over a decade following a finding of not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Board determined the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety despite fresh evidence from a clinical forensic psychologist indicating low risk on stalking-specific assessment tools.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, holding that the evidence fell short of establishing a significant threat to public safety and that the Board had effectively reversed the burden of proof by relying solely on a moderate-risk HCR-20 V3 assessment without proper expert contextualization.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that an NCR accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordering a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2002 for serious violent offences including aggravated assault, kidnapping, and assault with a weapon, argued the Board's finding was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant poses a significant threat within the meaning of the Criminal Code, based on his serious index offences, ongoing psychiatric symptoms including paranoid delusions, lack of insight into his mental illness, substance abuse, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 12, 2017, regarding his placement and security regime.

The appellant and Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care argued that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable.

The Board had concluded that public safety would be compromised if the appellant was transferred unless the maximum security regime at Waypoint could be effectively replicated at the receiving hospital, which would negate the purpose of transfer.

The court noted that further assessment by an independent assessor remained possible at the appellant's annual hearing scheduled for early April.

The appellant appealed dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated June 23, 2016 and March 7, 2017 regarding her detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences in 2005 and 2006.

She argued that the Board's finding that she poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that she should receive an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she remains a significant threat but found that the Board erred in summarily dismissing her request for a conditional discharge without further inquiry into her current behavioural status and without considering whether her risk could be managed through a conditional discharge with a consensual treatment order.

The appellant, an NCR accused with schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorder in remission, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to order a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The Board had imposed a requirement that the appellant demonstrate a 12-month drug-free period before obtaining absolute discharge, citing substance abuse as the critical risk factor.

The Court of Appeal found the Board had misdirected itself by shifting the burden of proof to the appellant and by relying on speculative evidence of risk rather than evidence demonstrating a significant threat to public safety.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered an absolute discharge.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting his half-brother in the back with a shotgun.

The appellant admitted to the shooting but claimed he only intended to scare his brother and shoot at the computer or stereo, not to kill him.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's jury instructions on the mens rea for murder contained serious legal errors, particularly regarding the treatment of evidence of mental illness and the distinction between a legal presumption and a permissible inference.

The trial judge incorrectly suggested that evidence of mental illness could only be relevant to sentencing and failed to properly instruct the jury that such evidence could negate the mental element required for murder.

The court also noted deficiencies in how the trial judge responded to the jury's request for clarification on the state of mind required for murder.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding him not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder following a guilty plea to assault.

He argued the NCR verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient, and there was inadequate evidence supporting the NCR finding.

The court reviewed the evidence, including psychiatric testimony, eyewitness evidence, and the legal test under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

It held that a reasonable trier of fact could have reached the NCR finding on the balance of probabilities and that the trial judge’s reasons were sufficient to permit appellate review.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown brought a motion to admit other discreditable conduct evidence in a prosecution for first degree murder after the defence indicated it may raise not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The proposed evidence included prior incidents of violence and jealousy within the accused’s relationship with the deceased, as well as unrelated statements reflecting violent and sexual attitudes.

Applying the balancing test from R. v. Handy, the court assessed whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential moral and reasoning prejudice.

Evidence from several witnesses describing prior violent conduct toward the deceased and a jealous reaction toward a third party was admitted as contextual evidence relevant to motive and intent.

Evidence concerning unrelated sexually violent remarks was excluded as insufficiently connected to the alleged offence and highly prejudicial.