Anita Szigeti (amicus curiae)

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his attending physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider evidence that his psychosis was drug-induced, ignored family dynamics, and failed to address a prior Board decision finding him capable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test under the Health Care Consent Act and had ample cogent evidence to conclude the appellant lacked the capacity to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, relying on an alibi.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable despite the alibi evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her detention in a minimum security facility.

She sought an absolute discharge or unsupervised community access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant posed a danger to the public and that the disposition was the least onerous and least restrictive option.

Fresh evidence regarding the appellant's absence without leave and refusal to take medication was admitted but ultimately supported the Board's decision.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a recognizance, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his conditional discharge.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to order a Community Treatment Order (CTO) instead.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on psychiatric evidence that the appellant would stop his medication and become a threat if absolutely discharged.

The Court also noted the Board lacked jurisdiction to order a CTO, as only a physician can issue one under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued he did not pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded based on expert evidence that the appellant would stop his medication if unsupervised, quickly decompensate, and pose a significant risk of harm to the public.

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board.

With the advice of counsel, the appellant chose to proceed with a review of that disposition instead.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot.

Appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition order under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant challenged the reasonableness of a detention order and a 50 km radius restriction requiring proximity to the hospital.

The court held that the disposition was supported by the record and reflected the least restrictive disposition agreed to by the parties before the Board.

Although fresh evidence showed the appellant was doing well, that progress was for the next Board hearing and did not render the earlier disposition unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The parties agreed that the Review Board's decision had no current effect or consequence for the appellant, as it was effectively erased by a subsequent decision of Trotter J. The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium secure unit.

The appellant argued that the disposition was unreasonable, that the Board failed to consider the statutory factors, that the reasons were inadequate, and that a treatment impasse had been reached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable given the significant escalation in the appellant's aggressive and threatening behaviour and the expert evidence supporting the need for a higher security level.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that rejected a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that, aside from a comment regarding the appellant being treatment consent incapable, the Board's decision was reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who had previously been found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a mental health facility.

The Review Board had concluded that the appellant posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, largely based on his history of medication non-compliance and marijuana use leading to mental deterioration.

The Court of Appeal found that the Review Board's conclusion was unreasonable, as the attending psychiatrist's opinion was uncertain and the appellant's history did not demonstrate a significant likelihood of physical violence.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred by failing to direct that necessary inquiries regarding the appellant's mother becoming an 'approved person' be finalized forthwith, as required by Winko.

The Board also misapprehended evidence by stating the appellant had no track record in the community, when in fact he had successfully completed several unescorted passes.

The Court substituted an order for conditional release and remitted the matter to the Board to determine appropriate conditions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal noted merit in the argument that the Board improperly focused on the risk of the appellant breaching a release order rather than the risk to public safety.

However, based on fresh evidence that the appellant had relapsed into substance abuse and was returned to the institution, the Court declined to interfere with the Board's order.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting the appellant could renew his argument for a conditional discharge at his next Board hearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety and in denying a conditional discharge.

The appellant had killed his parents while in a severe psychotic state caused by schizophrenia and cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, noting the appellant had only been living in the community for seven months and was exposed to a peer group using cannabis.

The Court found it was open to the Board to insist on a greater history of independent compliance before granting a conditional discharge.

The applicant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the disposition had been overtaken by a subsequent disposition of the Board.

The court found no pressing issue of law to justify proceeding with the appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital had supported a condition permitting the appellant to live in the community, but the Board did not grant it.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law and held that the Board's decision was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting the appellant's progress and expressing hope for further rehabilitation at his next hearing.

The appellant failed to appear for his appeal from a 2007 Ontario Review Board decision.

The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting that the 2007 hearing had been superseded by a subsequent hearing in October 2008 that proceeded on a joint submission, and the appellant was now living in the community.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to the maximum secure unit of the Oakridge Mental Health Centre.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision representing the least onerous and restrictive disposition was not unreasonable given the extensive evidence of the appellant's assaultive behaviour and the intractable nature of his illness.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board granting an absolute discharge to an accused found not criminally responsible.

The accused had twice attempted to grab a police officer's gun during suicidal episodes.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by placing an onus on the hospital to prove the accused posed a significant risk to the public.

The Court also held that the Board's conclusion that the accused did not pose a significant risk was unreasonable, speculative, and contrary to the uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence regarding her impulsivity and lack of insight.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his status in a minimum secure setting, deleted a condition permitting community living, and denied his request for an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the community, noting his recent elopement, failure to take medication, and lack of insight.

The court held that the Board did not err in rejecting the options of an absolute or conditional discharge.

The appeal was dismissed.