Kathryn Hunt

The appellant, a 24-year-old man diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment and confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued that he did better off the CTO and that his suicide attempt while on a previous CTO demonstrated that the CTO caused substantial mental deterioration.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decisions.

The court found that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant lacked insight into his illness and would likely suffer substantial mental deterioration without the CTO, given his history of decompensation and non-compliance with medication when not subject to an order.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board maintaining her detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

She argued the Board erred in its application of the Winko test by considering the risk of psychological harm sufficient to meet the threshold and in finding a detention order was the least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the appellant remained a significant threat to the public and that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage her risk.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible due to schizophrenia, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that changed his status from a conditional discharge to a detention order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's refusal to grant an absolute discharge, as the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the detention order, finding the Board failed to adequately explain why a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's compliance with previous conditions.

The conditional discharge was reinstated.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for minor assaults and detained at a minimum forensic unit.

Despite his ongoing marijuana use, he had no history of aggression while detained.

The Ontario Review Board ordered his transfer to a medium security unit to restrict his access to drugs and help him develop insight.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the transfer unreasonable because it was more restrictive of his liberty and there was no evidence linking his marijuana use to a risk to public safety while detained.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering that he remain under a conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the treating physician's opinion that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the public if he discontinued his medication.

The Board had appropriately recognized the appellant's progress by reducing his conditions, and left open the possibility of an absolute discharge at the next annual hearing.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

She argued the Board erred in finding she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence indicating a high risk of decompensation and violent behaviour if the appellant discontinued her medication.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and uttering death threats, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the significant threat standard and reasonably relied on expert evidence regarding the appellant's delusional disorder, refusal to take medication, and lack of insight.

The conditional discharge was upheld.

The appellant, found NCR in 2007, appealed an Ontario Review Board order transferring him from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit.

The hospital recommended the transfer because the appellant's repeated breaches of the anti-smoking policy and drug use resulted in the suspension of his indirectly supervised passes, making his detention on the general unit more restrictive due to staffing limitations.

The secure unit offered better access to necessary substance abuse programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable as it would enhance the appellant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.