J. Chrolavicius

The accused was charged with assault with intent to resist arrest after biting an officer who attempted to arrest her for harassing customers at a restaurant.

The accused argued the arrest was unlawful under s. 495(2) of the Criminal Code and violated her s. 9 Charter rights because the officer did not specifically turn his mind to the statutory limitations on warrantless arrests.

The court found that, viewed objectively, the circumstances justified the arrest in the public interest to establish the accused's identity and ensure her attendance in court, as she was walking away and refusing to stop.

The Charter application was dismissed and a finding of guilt was entered.

George Veerman, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder in 2008, underwent his mandatory annual review before the Ontario Review Board.

The Board assessed whether he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety under s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

While Mr. Veerman remained stable in the community under a conditional discharge, the Board noted his limited insight into his schizophrenia and recent concerns regarding his cannabis use.

The Board concluded that he remained a significant threat and ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge to ensure close monitoring by his treatment team.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a chronic psychotic disorder, comorbid substance use, and limited insight.

The Board concluded that a continuation of the existing Detention Order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, as the hospital requires the ability to manage his risk and return him to the hospital if he decompensates.

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

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and lack of insight into his condition.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public and monitor his mental health.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and criminal harassment.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and a severe cannabis use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his risk of decompensation and medication non-compliance if released without external controls.

The Board ordered a continuation of his detention at the hospital, with an expansion of his community privileges to all of Southern Ontario to facilitate family support.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The hospital reported a significant restriction of liberty after the accused was placed in seclusion following an unprovoked assault on a co-patient.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, remains a significant threat to public safety due to escalating unpredictable physical aggression.

The Board upheld the restriction of liberty as necessary and appropriate, and ordered the accused transferred to a high-secure provincial forensic program, with reduced privileges pending the transfer.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused had been living in the community successfully and remained stable on medication for bipolar disorder.

All parties agreed that while the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, a detention order was no longer necessary.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, adopting the hospital's recommended conditions but declining to impose a substance use prohibition as there was no history of substance use disorder.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had a history of non-compliance, substance use, and elopement from the hospital.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his persistent mental illness, substance use, and risk of decompensation if not supervised.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for numerous offences including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, arson, and robbery.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and Cannabis Abuse Disorder, had been living in the community subject to a Conditional Discharge.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the evidence of the attending psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his fragile mental state, susceptibility to stress, and risk of relapse into substance use and medication non-adherence.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Conditional Discharge with a reduced reporting requirement of not less than once per month.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had recently been discharged to live in the community with his father.

The accused sought a conditional discharge and permission to use cannabis for pain management.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight, recent request to discontinue antipsychotic medication, and fixation on using cannabis, which historically destabilized his mental state.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition and amended the conditions to explicitly prohibit the use of cannabis.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assaulting a peace officer and mischief.

At her initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board, evidence from her treating physician indicated she had made significant progress, understood the court process, and could meaningfully instruct counsel.

The Board accepted the uncontradicted medical evidence and the agreement of all parties, finding the accused fit to stand trial.

The Board ordered her returned to court and issued a Keep Fit Order in the interim.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for numerous offences including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The accused suffers from Bipolar Disorder and Cannabis Abuse Disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his propensity for rapid decompensation when non-adherent to treatment or exposed to destabilizers.

The Board ordered the continuation of the accused's conditional discharge, adding an abstinence clause that prohibits drugs and intoxicants but excludes alcohol, as the accused had demonstrated responsible alcohol use.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to change the location of an alleged slip and fall and to add a new corporate defendant as the owner or landlord of the premises.

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of reasonable diligence to discover the identity of the proper defendant within the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also rejected reliance on the doctrine of special circumstances, noting binding appellate authority that the doctrine cannot extend a limitation period.

The proposed amendment could not be justified as a correction of a misnomer under s. 21(2) because the amendment would alter the underlying material facts and the proposed defendant could not reasonably have known it was the intended defendant.

The motion to amend and add the party was dismissed and the derivative Family Law Act claims were also barred.