Not criminally responsible

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for manslaughter, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order for failing to include a community living term.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it did not adequately balance all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, specifically the appellant's reintegration into society and mental condition, beyond public safety concerns.

The court emphasized the importance of including a community living term to address housing waitlists and facilitate long-term reintegration, even if not immediately exercisable, especially when there is no evidence of public safety risk.

The appeal was allowed, and the disposition order was amended to include a community living term with conditions.

The accused, Mark Aninon, pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

The court found him not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, for both offences.

The decision was based on an agreed statement of facts establishing the actus reus and expert psychiatric evidence confirming that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing they were wrong.

The matter was remitted to the Review Board for disposition, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration in the NCR regime.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) in 2015, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued he no longer posed a significant threat due to medication compliance and incident-free reintegration.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, considering the paramount public safety, the appellant's mental condition, and reintegration.

Despite progress, the ORB found a significant threat remained due to the appellant's limited insight into his illness, potential for non-adherence to treatment without supervision, and expert psychiatric opinion.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conditional discharge.

This is an appeal concerning an insurer's duty to defend.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for an assault due to a psychotic episode, sought coverage under his homeowner's policy.

The insurer denied coverage based on an exclusion for bodily harm arising from intentional or criminal acts.

The application judge found the negligence claim derivative of an intentional tort and that the exclusion applied.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the application judge's conclusion that the true nature of the claim was an intentional act, despite the appellant's mental state, thus affirming the applicability of the exclusion clause.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering her detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

She argued the ORB erred in finding she posed a significant threat, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's determination of significant threat was reasonable, based on her history of violence, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight into her illness and medication, and the risk of decompensation leading to violent behaviour if medication ceased.

The court also upheld the ORB's refusal of a conditional discharge, noting its inquisitorial function was fulfilled and a detention order was necessary for public safety, as the Mental Health Act would not provide sufficient control in all foreseeable situations.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for a violent assault due to schizophrenia, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (a high-security facility) rather than transferring him to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (a medium-security facility closer to his family).

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Board's disposition.

Given the appellant's history of violent and volatile behavior, fluctuating medication compliance, and St. Joseph's stated inability to manage him, the court found the Board's decision to keep him at Waypoint reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, under a detention order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) following a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) finding, appealed the ORB's decision to continue his detention.

The appellant argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant risk to public safety and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk, based on psychiatric evidence of likely decompensation and violence if discharged, was reasonable.

The court also found the ORB reasonably considered and rejected a conditional discharge, given the risk of rapid deterioration.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to public safety lacked evidentiary support, particularly concerning the link between substance use and mental decompensation or medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the expert opinion of the appellant's treatment team, which was based on years of experience.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault with a weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued her detention order.

She sought an absolute or conditional discharge, or a new hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable.

The court noted the appellant's schizophrenic illness requiring medication, her lack of insight into her condition, and the risk of decompensation and danger to the public without supervision, especially given her history of substance abuse contributing to the index offences.

The court emphasized that her progress occurred under direct hospital supervision and that there was no record of success in a controlled community setting.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed a detention order, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that the Board reasonably rejected a conditional discharge.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's history of non-compliance with hospital stays, her limited insight into her mental illness, and the unsuitability of the proposed housing with her husband, given their problematic relationship and her past unstable housing as a risk factor.

The court found no error in the Board's assessment that a detention order was necessary to manage the significant risk to public safety.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2008 for aggravated assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue her detention order.

She sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the Board failed to adequately explain its finding that she remained a significant threat to public safety and neglected its inquisitorial duty to explore less restrictive dispositions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons transparent and intelligible, and that it had no further inquisitorial duty given the record and the appellant's position that she did not want restrictions.

Matthew Gibson, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining conditional discharge.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, contending the risk assessment was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his compliance with medication and treatment, and stable family support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's application of the significant risk test under the Criminal Code.

The court affirmed the Board's holistic consideration of risk factors, including lack of insight into his illness and index offences, and continued cannabis use, which outweighed protective factors, concluding the conditional discharge was necessary to manage the ongoing significant risk to public safety.

The appellant appealed two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

The first disposition, which transferred him to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), was dismissed as moot by the Court of Appeal as it had been superseded.

The second disposition, which ordered his detention at the highly secure Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care due to worsening behaviour and significant threat to public safety, was upheld.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, emphasizing that public safety, including the safety of hospital staff and co-patients, is the paramount consideration under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and deferred to the Board's expertise in managing the risk posed by the individual.

Helen Tolias, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition that ordered her detention.

The Board had conducted the disposition review hearing by videoconference without her consent and in her absence.

The Court of Appeal found this to be a jurisdictional error, rendering the Board's disposition null and void, and rejected the Crown's argument that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's disposition was set aside, and a new hearing was ordered.

The court also varied a previous disposition to allow the appellant to remain at a facility closer to her family.

Robiel Negash, found not criminally responsible for robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the ORB majority erred by applying a "possibility" rather than "probability" test for significant risk to public safety and failed to address inconsistencies in the treating psychiatrist's evidence.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the ORB for a fresh determination.

The appellant, a patient found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, sought a stay of a Superior Court order authorizing involuntary antipsychotic treatment.

This motion for a stay was brought pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that there was no serious question to be determined on appeal, the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm if the stay was denied, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored denying the stay.

The court emphasized the patient's suffering and the risk to hospital staff when he remained untreated.

Joseph Haddad appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which ordered his detention at a forensic mental health centre subject to conditions, specifically challenging a condition prohibiting him from attending within 250 metres of his mother's home.

Haddad was found not criminally responsible for an index offence involving discharging a shotgun.

The Board's decision to impose the condition was based on concerns for public safety, psychological harm to neighbours, and the appellant's transition to community living.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's reasonable decision, noting that the condition served to address victim safety and was not a significant restraint on the appellant's liberty, especially as his physician did not recommend visits to the family home.

Ara Koundakjian appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, having sought a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued the Board misstated the governing legal test by using "appropriate" instead of "necessary and appropriate" and failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board understood the correct standard despite the shorthand, and that its determination of continued detention was reasonable and entitled to deference given the appellant's history of mental illness, substance abuse (cocaine), lack of insight, frequent breaches of disposition conditions, and the significant risk of serious harm to the public.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (Board) decision to maintain a detention order, seeking a conditional or absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that the appellant still posed a significant threat to public safety.

However, the Court found the Board's decision to impose a detention order, rather than a conditional discharge, unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain why the appellant's risk could not be managed under a conditional discharge, particularly given the Hospital's recommendation for a conditional discharge and expert evidence regarding medication compliance and monitoring.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a rehearing.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition, which was a hybrid detention order with potential for community living.

The appellant had a history of non-compliance with previous conditional discharge orders, leading to hospitalization and absconding.

The appellant argued for a less restrictive disposition, but the Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding its reasons comprehensive and reasonable given the appellant's continued significant threat to public safety and history of absconding.