B. Eberdt

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and opioid use disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board ordered a Detention Order with the privilege of indirectly supervised passes into the community, finding this to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage the risk while supporting reintegration.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and exposing his genitals to a minor, challenging the trial judge's dismissal of his s. 11(b) Charter stay application and his s. 278 application for production of the complainant's counselling records.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the trial judge's calculation of delay, including the finding that a judge's conflict of interest constituted an exceptional circumstance, and agreed the case did not warrant a stay below the Jordan ceiling.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's refusal to order production of the counselling records, as the appellant failed to establish likely relevance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for an unprovoked and brutal aggravated assault, arguing it was manifestly unfit and failed to give proper effect to denunciation and deterrence.

The sentencing judge had effectively imposed a low penitentiary sentence after giving credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the principle of rehabilitation to give the respondent one last chance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion regarding the respondent's rehabilitative prospects and seeing no basis for appellate intervention.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding him $1,000 for injuries sustained in a bar fight.

The Board had reduced the compensation under s. 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act due to the appellant's criminal lifestyle, and under s. 17(2) for his failure to cooperate with police.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the Board erred in law by applying s. 17(1) without establishing a nexus between the appellant's conduct and his injuries.

The matter was remitted to the Board to reconsider the compensation amount based solely on the s. 17(2) finding.