Marie-Pierre T. Pilon

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a detention order and denied an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued the Board erred in failing to grant an absolute discharge, giving weight to previous appellate findings, and considering the vigour of counsel's submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, based on expert evidence of likely relapse and criminal conduct without supervision.

The appellant appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with community living privileges, arguing the Board failed to adequately consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was supported by the treating psychiatrist's opinion, which cited the appellant's poor insight and ambivalence to medication.

The court also addressed a moot issue regarding temporary liberty restriction due to early COVID-19 protocols, noting the Board's reasons properly advised the Hospital to consider individual clinical opinions in future.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, previously found NCRMD for assault with a weapon and robbery, appealed a conditional discharge disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board failed to fulfill its inquisitorial role and improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding whether he posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had sufficient evidence to make an informed decision and did not shift the burden of proof, as its concerns about the appellant's stability were amply supported by psychiatric evidence.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on driving-related charges, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a secure forensic psychiatric unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to hold a hearing regarding a temporary increase in restrictions on his liberty following an elopement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on public safety risk was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Court declined to decide the restriction of liberty issue as it was moot, and refused to impose a general notice and hearing procedure on the Board.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that denied his request for an absolute discharge and continued his conditional discharge.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence regarding his medication compliance and imposed an unreasonable disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while there was a minor factual error, it was not material to the Board's analysis.

The Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and justified given the appellant's lack of insight, history of substance abuse, and risk of future harm.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two sets of offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety, in rejecting a conditional discharge, and in failing to assist his progress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant threat was reasonable given his lack of insight, resistance to medication, and continued substance abuse.

The Court also found no error in the Board's rejection of a conditional discharge and concluded there was no treatment impasse.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible (NCR) for offences committed in 2000 and 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge and reinstated a condition prohibiting cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to conduct an even-handed analysis of the evidence, pathologized trivial conduct, and ignored significant evidence of the appellant's progress, medication compliance, and abstinence from other illicit drugs.

The appeal was allowed and an absolute discharge was ordered.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (Board) decision to maintain a detention order, seeking a conditional or absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that the appellant still posed a significant threat to public safety.

However, the Court found the Board's decision to impose a detention order, rather than a conditional discharge, unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain why the appellant's risk could not be managed under a conditional discharge, particularly given the Hospital's recommendation for a conditional discharge and expert evidence regarding medication compliance and monitoring.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a rehearing.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition finding that she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and refusing an absolute discharge.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2004 for theft of a motor vehicle and assault on police officers.

After 15 years in psychiatric care, the Board considered two incidents—a May 2018 threat to kill a co-resident and an October 2018 assault on a bus passenger—in concluding she remained a significant threat.

The appellant argued the Board improperly relied on unproven allegations based on hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the legal test and appropriately considered hearsay evidence in its inquisitorial proceedings.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision ordering his continued detention at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible for reasons of mental disorder in 2008 and 2011.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on three grounds: (1) the Board improperly used the appellant's request for discharge as evidence of lack of insight; (2) the Board's analysis on whether the appellant would pose a significant risk to public safety was insufficient and conflated risk of mental health relapse with risk to public safety; and (3) the Board improperly included a finding that the appellant had sexually assaulted a minor when he had been acquitted of that charge.

The appellant was entitled to a new hearing before the Board.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's detention order for a not criminally responsible accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing she posed no significant risk to public safety based on the absence of violent behaviour since 2015 and abstention from substance abuse since 2016.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the Board properly applied the test under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that evidence supported a finding of significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that absence of recent violent behaviour eliminated risk, noting that the appellant's stability was contingent on the structured hospital environment and that relapse into substance abuse and medication non-compliance would likely result in psychotic symptoms and violent behaviour.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that continued a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's analysis was unreasonable because it improperly focused on the appellant's lack of insight into his medical condition rather than conducting a holistic assessment of whether he posed a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm to the public.

The Board also failed to adequately address conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's insight and did not provide sufficient evidentiary analysis of the relevant factors.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision revoking a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

A new CTO was subsequently issued for the respondent.

The court found the appeal moot as the original dispute was no longer live and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the academic issue, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, R.K., appealed three rulings of the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB).

The CCB found that R.K.'s power of attorney for personal care did not confer the necessary authority to his friend W.D. to give or refuse consent to treatment, that R.K. was incapable of making treatment decisions for schizophrenia, and that appointing W.D. as his representative was not in R.K.'s best interests.

The Superior Court of Justice, applying a reasonableness standard for facts and mixed law/fact and correctness for extricable law, upheld all three CCB rulings.

The court affirmed the CCB's interpretation of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 regarding the scope of powers of attorney, R.K.'s inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of refusing antipsychotic medication, and W.D.'s unsuitability as a representative due to his views on conventional medicine.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained a detention order rather than granting a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board made a palpable and overriding factual error regarding his propensity to decompensate and that the Board failed to adequately consider alternative mechanisms for readmission to hospital.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding that the Board's findings were supported by evidence and that the detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available given the appellant's risk to public safety.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 21, 2018, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant argued that he no longer posed a significant danger to public safety due to improved insight into his mental illness, medication compliance, and stable employment and housing.

However, the court found the Board's concerns about recent cocaine use were reasonable given the appellant's history of manic episodes preceded by cocaine use and associated medication non-compliance.

The court allowed the appeal on the basis of transcription errors in the Board's reasons, which confused the appellant with another hospital patient and relied on irrelevant material.

A new hearing was ordered to take place as the appellant's annual review hearing in February 2019.

An appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at Brockville Mental Health Centre following a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the change in his diagnosis from schizophrenia to antisocial personality disorder and the role of cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable based on the revised diagnosis, evidence linking cannabis use to psychotic symptoms, a history of substance abuse, and a pattern of aggressive and violent behavior.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board declaring him unfit to stand trial and ordering his detention at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The appellant did not contest his unfitness or the finding that he posed a significant risk to the community due to serious mental illness, but argued he should be transferred to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre instead.

The Court of Appeal found the Review Board erred by failing to investigate when the complainant would be discharged from the Royal Ottawa Centre, which was the primary basis for the transfer order.

The court also identified unresolved questions regarding the appellant's linguistic rights under the Criminal Code and the French Language Services Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Review Board for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued the issuing physician failed to consult with the named health practitioners and that the substitute decision-maker had not signed the required undertaking when the CTO was issued.

The Superior Court found the Board's conclusion regarding consultation was reasonable.

However, the court held that the Board erred in law by not requiring the substitute decision-maker's undertaking to be in place before the CTO was issued.

The appeal was allowed and the CTO was quashed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after termination without cause following 31 years of service.

The court applied the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Considering the Bardal factors, including the employee’s age, lengthy service, supervisory role, and proximity to eligibility for an unreduced pension, the court determined that damages should effectively bridge the employee to his pension entitlement rather than apply a full 22‑month notice period.

The court rejected the employer’s mitigation arguments, finding that the employee’s extensive job search and acceptance of lower-paying retail work satisfied the duty to mitigate.

Judgment was granted for salary to the pension qualification date, compensation for lost pension value, and the contractual retirement allowance.