A. Sheivari

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

At the initial hearing, the Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his major mental illness, active psychosis, and substance use issues.

The Board ordered a detention order at the secure forensic unit with privileges up to indirectly supervised community access, concluding that community living was premature at this early stage of treatment.

The Ontario Review Board held an early review hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assaulting a peace officer.

The accused suffers from a neurocognitive disorder and schizophrenia spectrum disorder, presenting with chronic grandiose delusions.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot meaningfully participate in the criminal proceedings.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention disposition with amended conditions was ordered to allow the accused to transition to a long-term care facility while maintaining public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused has diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, ADHD, and antisocial personality disorder.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a conditional discharge, noting the accused's progress in an outpatient setting and abstinence from substances.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of rapid decompensation if she becomes medication non-compliant.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with a treatment condition, finding it to be the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage her risk while meeting her needs.

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 hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention disposition, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, noting recent positive screens for cocaine and the risk of rapid decompensation.

The Board concluded that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate to manage the risk while meeting the accused's needs.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, had recently been readmitted to the hospital from a supervised residence after purchasing weapons due to paranoia.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order, specifying that the risk can only be managed by 24-hour supervised accommodation, and expanded the catchment area to Eastern Ontario to facilitate suitable housing placement.

The Ontario Review Board held a disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for making false fire alarms and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder, and alcohol abuse disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of medication non-compliance and substance abuse leading to breakthrough psychosis.

However, given his current stability on injectable antipsychotic medication, the Board concluded that a Conditional Discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive appropriate disposition.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board of a significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty following his readmission to the hospital from a community residence.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of substance use, was found in possession of knives and experiencing increased paranoia and cravings.

The Board held a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code and found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused and his continued detention were necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to public safety.

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

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his psychotic disorder and history of substance abuse.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention order at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, but adopted the hospital's recommendations to remove the driving prohibition, amend reporting requirements, and add indirect supervision passes, finding these changes necessary for his reintegration and recovery.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her schizoaffective disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and history of substance abuse.

Despite recent progress and a transfer to a transitional residence, the accused lacks insight and remains at risk of relapse.

The Board ordered the continuation of her detention order at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, rejecting a request for a conditional discharge.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion for directions under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code to determine whether text messages and images sent by the complainant to the applicant constituted 'records'.

The preliminary issue was whether the complainant had standing on this motion.

The court held that denying the complainant a voice at the records determination stage would be inconsistent with the legislative purpose of balancing the accused's rights with the complainant's privacy interests.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the complainant standing on the motion for directions.