Lauren Barney

The accused was found not criminally responsible for sexual interference, criminal harassment, and sexual assault.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to make a disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and the unchallenged psychiatric evidence that the accused, who suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and experiences offence-paralleling delusions, poses a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention order with privileges up to and including community living in approved accommodation to allow for inpatient treatment, medication optimization, and rehabilitative programming.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, had been compliant with treatment and residing in the community without incident.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to underdeveloped insight into his illness and the index offences.

However, the Board concluded that his risk could be managed in the community and ordered a Conditional Discharge with terms, including medication compliance and abstinence from intoxicants.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering a threat, was readmitted to the hospital after his condition deteriorated, suspected to be due to substance use.

A restriction of liberty hearing was held to determine if the readmission was necessary and warranted under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board found that the initial readmission was justified due to the accused's manic-like symptoms and potential risk.

However, the Board concluded that the evidence did not support detaining the accused in the hospital beyond nine days after his readmission, as he had returned to his baseline condition.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for failure to comply with release orders, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The accused suffers from bipolar disorder and severe alcohol use disorder.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused has limited insight into his alcohol use and its connection to his risk.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention at the hospital, while amending his disposition to expand the geographical area for potential community accommodation and to allow escorted passes to his home.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and other offences.

The accused's index offences were driven by a psychotic episode caused by undiagnosed multiple sclerosis.

The majority of the Board found that the accused's multiple sclerosis is now well-managed with medication, and the risk of a future psychotic episode is low.

Concluding that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to public safety, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and forcible confinement, is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission and the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his vulnerability to stress and risk of medication non-adherence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the existing terms and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the hospital's decision to readmit the NCR accused from his community residence, significantly increasing the restrictions on his liberty.

The accused's physical and mental health had precipitously declined, leading to verbal aggression and respiratory failure.

The Board found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to public safety and provide necessary care.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and mischief.

At her annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused was asymptomatic, compliant with treatment, and assessed at a low risk of violent re-offending, the Board found she no longer posed a significant threat.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and weapons offences, was subject to a detention order at a forensic psychiatry program.

At his annual review hearing, his attending psychiatrist testified that his schizoaffective disorder was well-managed on clozapine and that his risk could be safely managed in the community with a Community Treatment Order and an Assertive Community Treatment team.

The Ontario Review Board accepted this uncontradicted evidence, finding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for property offences and diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.

The accused had been residing in the community under a conditional discharge, demonstrating medication compliance, stability, and insight into his illness.

Supported by a joint recommendation from the hospital, the Attorney General, and amicus curiae, the Board applied the Winko test and concluded the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

An absolute discharge was granted pursuant to s. 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a significant increase in the restrictions on the liberties of an accused found not criminally responsible for arson.

The accused, who was living in the community, was readmitted to the hospital after testing positive for cocaine, violating the abstinence condition of his disposition.

The Board found that the readmission constituted a significant increase in restrictions on his liberty, but concluded that the hospital's actions were warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measures available to manage his risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a significant increase in the restrictions on the liberties of an NCR accused, who had been readmitted to the hospital after an unauthorized leave of absence.

The accused had travelled out of province without permission and admitted to using cannabis, which exacerbated his schizophrenia symptoms.

The Board found that the hospital's actions in readmitting and detaining the accused constituted a significant increase in restrictions, but that these measures were warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive means to manage his risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for arson and personating a peace officer, was subject to a detention order at a hospital.

The accused requested an amendment to allow the use of cannabis from a licensed dispensary.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, noting a clear link between his substance use and worsening symptoms of psychosis, including agitation and paranoia.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with a strict prohibition on all substance use, including cannabis.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for mischief and arson.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had recently pled guilty to sexual assault and received a conditional sentence requiring him to remain in hospital.

The parties jointly submitted that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the accused's severe intractable mental disorder, residual symptoms, and risk of impulsive violence necessitated a continuation of the detention order on the same terms.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for firearms and uttering threats offences and was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight, ongoing paranoia, and risk of medication non-compliance if discharged.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order on the same terms to support his gradual transition to community living.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine the fitness and disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including break and enter and theft.

Based on the uncontradicted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remained unfit to stand trial due to a severe thought disorder stemming from schizophrenia.

The Board ordered a detention order as the necessary and appropriate disposition, noting the accused's history of homelessness and non-compliance with treatment, but declined to impose a condition prohibiting the use of intoxicating substances due to a lack of evidence of substance abuse.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and other offences.

The accused had been living in the community without readmission since 2021, demonstrating good insight into his schizoaffective disorder and substance use issues.

All parties, including the hospital and the Attorney General, jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board agreed and ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson-related offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a neurocognitive disorder, remained stable in a hospital setting but continued to experience symptoms and lacked insight.

The treatment team opined that she required a 24/7 supervised setting, such as a long-term care facility, but none was currently available.

The Board found that the accused continued to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of her detention disposition without change, while noting concerns about bureaucratic delays in securing a long-term care placement.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living successfully in the community for several years and maintained medication compliance despite lacking insight into his illness.

The Board applied the Winko framework and found that the evidence did not establish that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board granted an absolute discharge, noting the accused's stable housing, ongoing support from community mental health teams, and the absence of any attempts to contact the victim.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and a cannabis use disorder, and experiences treatment-resistant delusional beliefs.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his lack of insight, stated intention to discontinue medication, and risk of resuming cannabis use.

The Board concluded that a Conditional Discharge was inadequate to manage his risk and ordered a continued Detention Order with unchanged terms to support his gradual transition to community living.