Maura Jette

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to undue delay.

The delay included a period following a mistrial caused by a misstep by the trial judge.

The application judge characterized this period as institutional delay, noting the unusual circumstances and the failure of the Crown or the court to canvas earlier trial dates.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusions regarding the characterization of the delay or the finding of prejudice, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained in a psychiatric facility, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued that his transfer to a more restrictive unit violated his rights under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, and sought a conditional discharge as a stand-alone remedy under section 24(1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's findings that the transfer was necessary due to the appellant's dangerous conduct and did not violate his Charter rights.

The Court also affirmed that the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy, such as a conditional discharge, that would endanger public safety and frustrate its statutory mandate.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention at a mental health facility.

The hospital had significantly increased restrictions on his liberty after he tested positive for illicit drugs and exhibited deteriorating mental health.

The Board conducted a combined restrictions review and annual review, concluding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and that his ongoing detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal standards and that its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board, seeking a transfer to another part of the facility to be treated by a different team of doctors due to an alleged treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to find a treatment impasse was reasonable as the current treatment team had an ongoing plan involving different medication strategies.

The appellant appealed a 2007 disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

However, a subsequent 2008 disposition was made which the appellant did not appeal, and his concerns regarding the panel's composition were addressed at both hearings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board applied an incorrect legal test by focusing exclusively on public safety and unreasonably disregarded expert evidence that he could be managed in a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered all statutory criteria and balanced the appellant's treatment needs against the risk he posed to the public.

The Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the proposed management plan was speculative and that the appellant was not an appropriate candidate for a medium secure setting due to his unwillingness to undergo a necessary medication trial.