Maura Jetté

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for multiple murders and sexual offences in the 1970s and 1980s, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a high-security facility.

At his annual review, all parties jointly submitted that he should be transferred to a less secure facility for a 90-day independent psychiatric assessment to explore a potential move to a less secure environment.

The Board rejected the joint submission.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain its rejection of the joint submission, misapprehended the evidence regarding the utility of the assessment, and failed to fulfill its inquisitorial duty to explore the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

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

At his annual review hearing, all parties presented a joint submission to continue his previous disposition, which included unaccompanied privileges.

The Board rejected the joint submission and imposed a more restrictive disposition without giving the parties notice of its intention to do so.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to give the appellant notice that it was inclined to reject the joint submission and an opportunity to lead further evidence or make additional submissions.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at CAMH with a condition allowing him to live in approved community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not ordering a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered the relevant criteria, including the appellant's liberty interest, and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to ensure CAMH could approve his housing as the safest first step for reintegration.

The appellant, a dual-status offender found not criminally responsible (NCR) and serving two life sentences for sexual offences, appealed conditions imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board ordered his continued detention at a secure forensic psychiatric facility with conditions restricting his unmonitored use of email and requiring staff escorts for community access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the conditions were reasonable and did not violate the appellant's section 8 Charter rights or the Mental Health Act, as an NCR detainee has a significantly diminished expectation of privacy in a secure institutional setting.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital had supported a condition permitting the appellant to live in the community, but the Board did not grant it.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law and held that the Board's decision was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting the appellant's progress and expressing hope for further rehabilitation at his next hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and other offences, as well as his 18-month sentence.

He had fled from police, run over an officer's leg, and resisted arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding his actions were intentional.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge overemphasized general deterrence and failed to adequately consider the appellant's youth, first-offender status, significant rehabilitation prospects, and aboriginal status.

The sentence was varied to three months of time served followed by a 12-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had issued a split decision regarding the appellant's security level and privileges.

The Court of Appeal found that while the case was complex and there was some ambiguity in the evidence, the majority's reasons were not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that a fresh review hearing was scheduled shortly where the appellant's needs and progress could be reassessed.