M. Bornfreund

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for murder due to schizophrenia.

The accused had been living independently in the community without incident since 2021 and demonstrated sustained remission of symptoms, strong insight, and strict medication compliance.

The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, and the Crown did not oppose.

The Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on two counts of second-degree murder and one count of aggravated assault.

At his initial Disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the Board found that he remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, limited insight into his substance use disorders, and a history of severe violence.

The Board ordered his detention at a secure forensic hospital.

While the hospital recommended indirectly supervised community passes, the Board restricted his privileges to accompanied passes only, finding that indirectly supervised passes were premature given his recent admission and need for further stabilization and assessment.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge following a finding of not criminally responsible for murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community and complying with her treatment regime.

The majority of the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as she relies heavily on the high level of supervision and support from the forensic outpatient team to maintain her stability.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge.

One member dissented, concluding that the accused no longer presents a significant threat and should be granted an absolute discharge.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking cocaine, the accused brought an application to stay the verdict on the basis of entrapment.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's framework for dial-a-dope operations to determine if police had reasonable suspicion before providing the opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found that the undercover officer's initial exchange with the accused crystallized the requisite reasonable suspicion before the officer requested to purchase drugs.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual touching of a complainant under sixteen arising from alleged incidents in a family home.

The court assessed the complainant’s evidence, incomplete text-message and audio-recording evidence, the evidence of the complainant’s boyfriend and mother, and the accused’s denial under the W.D. framework.

The court found significant concerns arising from incomplete or missing evidence, credibility and reliability problems in key Crown evidence, and transcript disputes concerning recorded calls.

Applying the criminal burden of proof, the court held that the evidence left a reasonable doubt and entered findings of not guilty on both counts.

Following a jury verdict finding the applicant guilty of manslaughter, the applicant brought a motion seeking the trial judge's recusal from the sentencing hearing, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant cited several incidents, including the judge's post-verdict comments to the deceased's family, accepting doughnuts brought by the family, and various procedural rulings and expressions of frustration.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a fully informed reasonable person would not apprehend bias from any of the isolated incidents or their cumulative effect, noting that the presumption of judicial impartiality had not been displaced.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

She changed the registration colour of a vehicle used by her boyfriend during a murder to avoid police detection.

The court considered her 876 days of pre-trial custody, credited as 1,314 days (3.5 years).

The court imposed a sentence of one day in jail in addition to the pre-trial custody, declining to order probation as the offender had demonstrated rehabilitation while on bail.

During a jury trial for being an accessory after the fact to murder, the accused argued that the defence of duress should be left with the jury.

The alleged duress arose from the accused’s relationship with a violent offender and prior threatening communications.

The court applied the “air of reality” test and held that there was no evidence of an explicit or implicit threat temporally connected to the accused’s conduct or made for the purpose of compelling the offence.

Earlier threats and violent conduct occurring a year prior lacked the necessary nexus to the impugned acts.

The defence of duress was therefore withdrawn from the jury.

Accused persons charged with murder brought applications to exclude historical text messages obtained by police through a production order directed to a telecommunications provider.

They argued that s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code did not authorize the production of private communications, or alternatively that the provision violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court held that stored historical text messages constitute “data” within the meaning of the provision and that obtaining them by production order does not amount to interception of private communications under Part VI.

The statutory prerequisites for a production order satisfied constitutional standards for reasonable search and seizure.

The applications to exclude the evidence were dismissed.

The accused, a Wal-Mart cashier, was charged with fraud and fraudulent use of a credit card for allegedly participating in a scheme to process fraudulent credit cards in exchange for gift cards.

The Crown relied on the testimony of an accomplice who recruited individuals to use the fake cards at the accused's register, as well as video surveillance and text messages.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility, the court rejected the accused's testimony as contrived and accepted the corroborated evidence of the accomplice.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.