Michael Davies (amicus curiae)

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant chose not to attend the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

Appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a jury finding that the appellant was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and alleged prejudice arising from the treatment of his name during the criminal process.

Amicus additionally argued that the trial judge should not have explained the consequences of an NCR finding to the jury and that the judge misstated an example under s. 16.

The Court of Appeal held there was ample evidence to support the verdict, no prejudice arose from the treatment of the appellant's name, the charge on consequences was permissible in the circumstances, and the mistaken example was harmless because the other branch of s. 16 was the issue at trial.

The appellant appealed from a conviction by the Ontario Court of Justice.

At the request of the appellant, the appeals were abandoned.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board failed to apply the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code when it denied a community living condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was aware of and applied the correct test.

The Court held that the evidence, including the appellant's continuing substance abuse and personality disorder, amply supported the Board's conclusion that a community placement condition did not meet the mandated test.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter issues raised were bound by previous decisions and that the Board's decision was reasonable on the record.

The Court also held that the Board did not err by failing to initiate its own inquiries beyond the material placed before it.

The appellant appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) and a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the NCR finding, holding that the appellant's guilty plea was unequivocal and there was no dispute regarding fitness.

The appeal from the Board's order was dismissed as moot because the appellant was scheduled to be moved to another facility.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

The Board found that the appellant would stop his medication and abuse substances if given an absolute discharge, but failed to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's failure to specifically inquire into the availability and propriety of a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition was an error of law.

The Court also noted the Board improperly considered non-conviction charges in its risk assessment.

The disposition was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 28 years, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention.

The appellant had a long-standing practice of refusing to attend Board hearings, refusing counsel, and refusing all psychiatric treatment.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred in law by failing to recognize its inquisitorial role under the Criminal Code.

Given the treatment impasse, the Board had a duty to consider making further inquiries rather than simply recapitulating the static situation.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered, with the Court noting the Board has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae to assist in such cases.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the Board did not have the benefit of the most recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the conditions imposed were the least onerous and restrictive possible.

The Board's decision was reasonable and consistent with the available evidence.