Jean D. Buie

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board erred in its application of the Winko test by failing to properly assess whether the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, specifically regarding the risk of serious physical or psychological harm.

The appeal was allowed and the matter returned to the Board for rehearing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board failed to make the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not granting the hospital discretion to permit him to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable and supported by evidence that community living was not a viable option due to the appellant's obsession with living with his daughters.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

Amicus curiae and the hospital argued the Board erred by imposing a 24-hour supervision requirement without canvassing the parties, and by denying overnight visits.

The Court of Appeal agreed the Board should have canvassed the parties regarding the supervision requirement, which was overly restrictive.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, amending the disposition to remove the '24 hours a day' supervision requirement, but upheld the Board's decision to deny overnight passes.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering that he continue to be subject to a Conditional Discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board made serious errors of law, as there was no positive evidence that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant had been living in the community for almost five years, adhered to his medication, and had the support of his treatment team for an absolute discharge.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an absolute discharge.

The appellant hospital appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting the respondent, who was previously found not criminally responsible, a conditional discharge.

The hospital argued that the respondent's recent involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act triggered a mandatory restriction of liberty hearing under the Criminal Code, and that the Board's disposition improperly blended a conditional discharge with a detention order.

The Court of Appeal held that a Mental Health Act committal does not trigger the Criminal Code hearing requirement.

The Court further found that the Board's disposition was a valid conditional discharge and was reasonable given the respondent's history and the risk management concerns.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, mental illness, and limited insight.

The Court found the Board reasonably concluded that a conditional discharge could not sufficiently manage the risk of decompensation and that detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Board failed to properly address the mechanisms for return under the Criminal Code if the appellant breached conditions, its ultimate decision was not unreasonable.

The appellant's lack of insight into his illness, history of non-compliance, and the stressors he would face in the community justified the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him in a medium security facility, seeking a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant suffers from a serious psychiatric disorder, is resistant to treatment, lacks insight, and represents a serious risk to public safety if untreated.

The Board's order was held to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, which was entered on his consent at trial.

He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appointed amicus curiae found no basis for this claim.

The Court of Appeal held there was no evidence that the appellant's consent was involuntary, equivocal, or uninformed, and found the NCR verdict was reasonable based on the psychiatric assessment and the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention in a medium secure unit.

He argued the Board erred by failing to explore alternate treatment options, that the process was unconstitutional, and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no impasse in treatment, noting the Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the constitutionality of the process, and concluding the disposition was reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight into his schizophrenia, history of violence, and the resulting risk to the public.