Stephen O’Brien

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for three counts of failing to stop after an accident, while simultaneously being convicted of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

At his initial Ontario Review Board hearing regarding the NCR findings, the hospital's forensic psychiatrist testified that the accused did not suffer from a major mental illness, lacked antisocial traits, and posed a very low risk of reoffending.

The Board accepted this evidence, finding that the accused did not meet the threshold of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Consequently, the Board ordered an absolute discharge in relation to the NCR offences.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the conditional discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a mild intellectual disability, sought an absolute discharge.

The Hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's limited insight, residual psychosis, and need for 24-hour support meant he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for second-degree murder after stabbing his cousin.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of cannabis use disorder, and the recent nature of his symptom management.

The Board ordered his detention at a forensic psychiatry program with strict conditions, including absolute abstinence from intoxicants and a graduated, highly supervised approach to community access privileges.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on a charge of first degree murder.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to properly analyze exculpatory evidence relating to identification and timeline, and that there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

The court reviewed the limited role of a preliminary inquiry judge under s. 548(1) of the Criminal Code and the principles from appellate jurisprudence governing circumstantial evidence at the committal stage.

It concluded the preliminary inquiry judge properly considered the whole of the evidence and did not exceed the limited weighing permitted in circumstantial cases.

The evidence, if believed, was capable of supporting inferences of identity and planning and deliberation, making committal appropriate.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, sought to vary a s. 516(2) non-communication order to remove his common-law spouse, a material witness for the Crown, from the list of prohibited persons.

The applicant argued the order unfairly interfered with their relationship and their intention to marry.

The court dismissed the application, finding strong evidence that the spouse had previously expressed fear of the applicant, sought police protection, and that the applicant had a history of threatening and counseling the murder of other witnesses.

The court held that the societal interest in protecting witnesses and ensuring a fair trial justified the continued non-communication order.