C. Cornale

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

The accused suffers from Delusional Disorder and has a history of substance abuse.

While the accused remained stable over the past year with support and supervision, he continues to have limited insight into his illness and requires ongoing assistance with daily activities.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties and the treating psychiatrist, concluding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The detention order was continued with the same terms and conditions.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community under a conditional discharge.

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused had a positive year, remained compliant with medication, and had negative drug screens, though he continued to experience some hallucinations and anxiety.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge, but removed the prohibition against alcohol consumption as recommended by all parties.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for an indecent act, criminal harassment, and uttering threats.

The accused sought a Conditional Discharge, while the hospital and Attorney General sought a continuation of the Detention Order.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his persistent schizophrenia, refractory psychotic symptoms, lack of insight, and history of noncompliance with treatment.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order remained the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to ensure public safety and allow for rapid readmission if necessary.

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 conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for two counts of assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder and substance use disorders, had recently been discharged to a supported residence in the community and was progressing well.

However, relying on the attending psychiatrist's evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to underdeveloped insight and a high risk of decompensation without Board oversight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition, finding a Conditional Discharge premature.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community since 2022 and recently transitioned to independent living.

The Board found that while the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, his risk could be managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge Disposition with conditions including medication adherence, substance abstinence, and a no-contact order.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment.

He argued the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown to call reply evidence on a collateral issue regarding how he obtained an invitation to the complainant's dinner party.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the reply evidence was admissible because the issue took on new significance during the defence case.

The court also found the sentence, which included a suspended sentence and three years' probation, was not clearly unreasonable given the persistent nature of the harassment.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.