Self-represented (Amicus: Anita Szigeti)

The appellant appealed a Disposition Order of the Ontario Review Board that granted him a conditional discharge, arguing he should have received an absolute discharge.

The appellant contended the Board erred in finding he represented a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's unanimous decision, which relied on evidence that the appellant would pose a significant risk without the control of a conditional discharge.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court also found the Board's decision to detain the appellant on a secure unit rather than a general unit or via a hybrid order was reasonable given concerns about her risk of going AWOL and assaultive behaviour.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge or, alternatively, permission to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that there was a treatment impasse, noting that the diagnosis had been clarified and the treatment team was trying different approaches.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention with community privileges.

The respondents sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent events, which the Court of Appeal declined to admit to avoid delaying the hearing until the next annual review.

On the merits, the Court found the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to a maximum-security facility.

The appellant argued that the hospital breached its statutory duty under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code by failing to provide notice of an increase in restrictions on his liberty.

The Court of Appeal accepted that a breach occurred, but found the issue moot given the Board's subsequent transfer decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was supported by unchallenged expert evidence from the treating physician that the appellant was not suitable for a medium-security placement.