Kirstin Yvonne Macrae

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on a charge of sexual assault.

Applying the fitness test from Bharwani, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to a moderate intellectual disability.

Applying Winko, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition at the secure forensic unit, noting recent progress toward a potential community placement.

The hospital requested an early review of the accused's disposition to amend his housing and reporting conditions.

The accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on a sexual assault charge, required a change from a 'locked residence' to '24/7 supervised accommodation' due to funding and placement delays.

The Ontario Review Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the amendments would facilitate the accused's community reintegration while appropriately managing his risk to public safety.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and assault with a weapon, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and Crown sought to maintain the existing detention order.

The Board found that a conditional discharge was premature given the accused's recent transfer to a supervised residence, ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, and the significant risk to public safety, particularly to his former spouse.

The detention order was maintained with a minor amendment to the conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and mischief.

The accused has a diagnosis of Bipolar I disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, as she would likely become non-compliant with medication and decompensate without a disposition.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with amended conditions, including a bi-weekly reporting requirement and provisions allowing for international travel passes of up to 21 days to accommodate her medication schedule.

The court considered whether to exercise its discretion to grant pre-charge Charter relief in the form of a declaration that the seizure of items by police during a criminal investigation was in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The Applicants, Eastway Tank Pump and Meter Ltd. and Neil Greene, had not been charged with a criminal offence but were under investigation following a fatal explosion.

The court reviewed the factual background, the parties' positions, and relevant case law on the availability of certiorari and declaratory relief prior to the laying of charges.

Ultimately, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the relief at this stage, finding the Charter issues best left to the trial judge, but left open the possibility of renewal if charges are not laid within a reasonable time and further evidence of reputational harm is provided.

The Ontario Review Board held an early review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences, including break and enter and driving while prohibited.

The hospital sought to amend the accused's Detention Disposition to allow him to complete a six-month residential treatment program for severe substance use disorders.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia and substance use issues.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition with amended privileges, permitting the accused to reside at and participate in a residential treatment program in Ontario, while maintaining necessary oversight to protect the public.

Following jury convictions for conspiracy to facilitate a terrorist activity and facilitating a terrorist activity, the court conducted a Gardiner hearing to determine disputed facts relevant to sentencing.

Applying s. 724 of the Criminal Code and the principles in R. v. Gardiner, the judge determined which aggravating facts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and which alleged mitigating facts were established on a balance of probabilities.

The court found that the accused supported violent jihadist causes, assisted associates involved in terrorist activity, provided funds intended for foreign terrorists to purchase weapons and grenades, and participated in recruiting others into the group.

The court also addressed possession of explosive components but concluded that the purpose of that possession was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the jury’s acquittal on the explosives charge.

The decision sets out factual findings to guide the subsequent sentencing determination.