G. Skerkowski

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on charges of uttering threats and failing to comply with probation.

The accused suffers from chronic schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains unable to meaningfully participate in a trial or instruct counsel due to his thought disorder.

The Board also found that the accused poses a significant threat to public safety due to his mental illness, history of non-compliance with treatment, and substance abuse.

A Detention Order was imposed.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberties (ROL) and the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and an indecent act.

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, had been placed in seclusion after pushing a female co-patient.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing ROL was warranted due to the accused's unpredictable and violent behaviour when not optimally medicated.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a Detention Order with a transfer to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, a higher-security facility, as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson after setting fire to his mother's home while experiencing psychosis secondary to a severe traumatic brain injury and substance use.

At his initial Ontario Review Board hearing, all parties agreed he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Order Disposition, noting his vulnerability to psychosis, need for brain injury rehabilitation, and historical risk factors.

The Board granted travel privileges of up to 75 kilometres for up to seven days to allow for visits with his supportive grandfather, providing the hospital discretion to manage his reintegration.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for robbery and assault causing bodily harm and referred to the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The hospital and Crown sought a Detention Order, while the accused requested a Conditional Discharge.

The Board found that the accused, who has chronic schizophrenia, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of medication non-adherence and substance use.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage his risk and ensure rapid readmission if decompensation occurs.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other violent offences.

The hospital and Crown sought a continued Detention Order with a no-contact provision regarding the accused's ex-girlfriend, and a transfer to another facility.

The accused sought a Conditional Discharge and opposed the transfer.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of rapid decompensation and recent boundary issues with his ex-girlfriend.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Order with a no-contact provision, but denied the transfer, finding that remaining at his current supportive housing in Kingston was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused, who has a moderate to severe intellectual disability and Autism Spectrum Disorder, was found unfit to stand trial on two charges of assault causing bodily harm against group home workers.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing and found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, as they lack the ability to meaningfully participate in a court process or have a reality-based understanding of the proceedings.

The Board also found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered a Detention Order with conditions, including residence in a 24-hour supervised accommodation.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assaulting peace officers.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether the accused posed a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on psychiatric evidence and a joint submission, the Board found the accused's schizophrenia and substance use disorder contributed to a moderate risk of violence, particularly towards family members.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat and ordered a Detention Order with structured rehabilitation.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing for the accused, who was detained at Providence Care Hospital.

The accused had been placed in seclusion following an assault on a co-patient.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was warranted and the least restrictive option available.

The Board concluded the accused continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered her continued detention.

The Board declined to remove the alcohol prohibition from her disposition but expanded the geographical radius of her passes to allow overnight visits with her mother, subject to the approval of the person in charge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual interference and breach of probation.

The accused has diagnoses of moderate intellectual disability, pedophilic disorder, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Based on a joint recommendation from all parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of a Detention Order with privileges, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, unlawful confinement, choking with intent, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault against his former girlfriend.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the core details of the assault and sexual assault to be credible and reliable, despite some inconsistencies and delayed disclosure.

The accused was found guilty of unlawful confinement, assault causing bodily harm, and sexual assault, but not guilty of attempted murder and choking with intent, as the Crown failed to prove the requisite intent for attempted murder and the choking was considered part of the assault.

The Crown sought a discretionary publication ban under section 517 of the Criminal Code during a bail hearing.

The accused opposed the request.

The court denied the application, finding that the Crown's concerns regarding the tainting of prospective jurors and witnesses were speculative and not grounded in the evidence.

The court noted that the trial was likely at least a year away and public knowledge of such matters is fleeting.