Leah Shafran

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and criminal harassment, underwent an annual review of her hospital detention disposition.

The Ontario Review Board found that she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her schizoaffective disorder and history of elopement.

The Board ordered her continued detention at the hospital with privileges, noting that while she is ready for community living, she requires 24-hour supervision, which could include long-term care or other supervised housing options.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for breaking and entering and sexual assault.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the accused was absent and his whereabouts were unknown.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder and Cannabis Use Disorder, represents a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his nonadherence to treatment, ongoing substance use, and recent escalating behaviour involving a knife.

The Board ordered a detention order with discretionary privileges, requiring immediate hospital admission.

Sentencing followed guilty pleas to multiple assaults, an indecent act, and breach of a release order arising from incidents involving a child victim, a parent, and kindergarten students.

The court accepted a joint submission for a custodial term and probation after weighing aggravating factors, including targeting children in public spaces and violating a no-attendance release condition, and mitigating factors, including a guilty plea and mental illness linked to the offending behaviour.

The reasons emphasize denunciation and deterrence under Criminal Code ss. 718.01 and 718.04, while also recognizing broader community harm through a community impact statement under s. 722.2(1).

The joint position was found reasonable, with Summers credit applied to pre-sentence custody and ancillary orders imposed.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and indecent acts.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had made positive progress over the year, including medication optimization and abstinence from substances.

However, relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to residual symptoms and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, remained guarded and treatment-resistant, with a history of violence when acutely unwell.

Accepting the joint submission of the parties and the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

A Detention Order within the secure forensic program was maintained to allow for medication optimization and gradual transition to a general unit.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two charges of assault.

The accused's attending psychiatrist testified that the accused's major mental illness is in full remission, he is compliant with treatment, and he has successfully resided in the community for several years without incident.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for threatening death and criminal harassment.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, continued to experience erotomanic delusions and disinhibition, and presented an ongoing elopement risk.

Relying on the hospital's evidence, the Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition, noting that a fully supported accommodation such as a long-term care facility would be required upon any future discharge.

The applicant, Michael Turcios, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the scheduled end of trial was 893 days (29 months and 11 days), exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the delay was primarily attributable to the Crown and police's failure to provide timely and complete disclosure, despite diligent efforts by the defence.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments that the delay was caused by the defence's late review or requests.

Finding no defence-caused delay or exceptional circumstances, the court concluded the delay was unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

M.L. was sentenced for multiple intimate partner violence offences, including five counts of assault, one sexual assault, two mischief under $5000, and one uttering threats.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the prolonged nature of the abuse, the presence of a child during some assaults, and the breach of trust.

Mitigating factors included M.L.'s lack of prior criminal record, community support, and rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months custody (11 months additional jail after pre-sentence credit) and 24 months probation.

An exemption from the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was granted, finding it grossly disproportionate given M.L.'s rehabilitative prospects and low risk of re-offending.

The defendant, Matthew McNair, was charged with refusing a breath sample, failing to comply with a release order, and several Highway Traffic Act offences.

The defence sought to exclude evidence of the breath refusal due to alleged violations of Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) and an unlawful breath demand.

The court found that the defendant's s. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights were violated due to arbitrary detention, prolonged handcuffing, and delayed/unclear right to counsel cautions.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the evidence of the breath refusal.

Additionally, the breath demand itself was found unlawful due to non-compliance with the "immediacy" requirement of s. 320.27 of the Criminal Code and the absence of an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

However, evidence for the Highway Traffic Act offences and the breach of the release order was admitted as these offences occurred prior to the Charter breaches and the evidence was not "obtained in a manner" that violated the Charter.

The applicants, two hospital security guards, sought certiorari to quash their committal for trial on charges of manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from an incident where a patient died following a physical altercation and restraint by the guards.

The reviewing judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence for the essential elements of the offences.

Upon review, the court concluded there was no evidence establishing the objective foreseeability of non-trivial bodily harm for manslaughter, nor any evidence of wanton or reckless disregard for life for criminal negligence.

The application was granted and the committal orders were quashed.

The offenders were sentenced for their roles in the home invasion robbery and murder of the victim.

Wight, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was an active participant in the severe beating, was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

Hoo-Hing, who was found guilty of second degree murder as a secondary party for facilitating entry and assisting in the robbery plan, received a mandatory life sentence with a 13-year period of parole ineligibility.

The court also ordered the forfeiture of $18,800 seized from Hoo-Hing as proceeds of crime.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including prowl at night, obstruct police, escape lawful custody, and assault police causing bodily harm, following an interaction with police investigating a suspicious person report.

The court dismissed all charges except the assault charge due to lack of evidence.

On the Charter application, the court found egregious police misconduct, including unlawful detention, excessive use of force (tasering a fleeing, unarmed suspect), racial profiling, and severe breaches of the right to counsel.

Finding that the police conduct fell into the residual category of cases where state conduct undermines the integrity of the justice system, the court granted a stay of proceedings on the remaining assault charge under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

During deliberations in a lengthy murder trial, the jury sent several notes indicating they had reached unanimous verdicts for two accused and a unanimous verdict on a lesser included offence for the third accused, but were deadlocked on the greater offence for the third accused.

Five majority jurors sent notes attacking the reasoning of the minority jurors, including allegations of racism.

The trial judge declined to conduct an inquiry into the minority jurors' reasoning or declare a mistrial, finding that doing so would violate the common law jury secrecy rule and s. 649 of the Criminal Code.

The court accepted the unanimous verdicts reached by the jury.

In a trial for first-degree murder involving three co-accused, the Crown and one co-accused sought to admit text messages and prior convictions of another co-accused to establish a drug dealer-purchaser relationship and a disposition for violence and firearms.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding that its probative value in supporting the co-accused's defence of lack of intent outweighed the prejudicial effect.

The court provided mid-trial and final limiting instructions to the jury regarding the permissible and impermissible uses of the disposition evidence.

The applicant applied to quash his committal to stand trial on drug possession and trafficking charges relating to drugs found in the second bedroom of a short-term rental unit.

He argued there was no evidence he had knowledge or control over those specific drugs.

The reviewing judge dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge did not err in concluding there was sufficient circumstantial evidence—including the applicant's access to the unit, drugs on his person, and drug paraphernalia in common areas—to support an inference of joint possession and control.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to making available and possessing child pornography, with an intervening constitutional challenge to mandatory minimum penalties.

The court held that the 12-month mandatory minimum for indictable possession of child pornography was unconstitutional, but declined under the Lloyd approach to decide the constitutionality of the identical minimum for making available child pornography because the offender's proper sentencing range exceeded 12 months.

In fixing sentence, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, the serious nature of distributing child pornography, and the collection's heightened depravity, including infants, bondage, bestiality, and penetrative acts.

A global sentence of 14 months' incarceration, reduced from 15 months in part to account for pre-sentence credit and pandemic conditions, was imposed concurrently on both counts, followed by 18 months' probation and multiple ancillary orders.

The offender was found guilty of unlawfully in a dwelling house and sexual assault.

The court considered sentencing submissions, including the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order (CSO).

The judge determined that a combination of real jail and a CSO was appropriate, imposing 90 days intermittent jail and a fine for the sexual assault, and a 10-month CSO followed by probation for the unlawfully in a dwelling house offence.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The applicant, an Indigenous person with a history of trauma and mental health challenges, sought a review of a detention order.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace committed an error of law by failing to apply Gladue principles.

Additionally, the applicant's recent acquisition of stable, supportive housing constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the secondary ground concerns could be addressed through the wraparound supports and housing now available, and ordered the applicant's release on their own recognizance with Bail Program supervision.

The defendant, Brennen Harman, was charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling house and sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that Harman entered the complainant's locked basement apartment while she slept and sexually assaulted her.

The defendant denied the claims, suggesting the complainant fabricated them after being evicted.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, concluding that he had access to the apartment, a demonstrated sexual interest in the complainant, and that the complainant's testimony was credible and corroborated by other evidence, rebutting the fabrication defence.