Leisha Senko

The appellant, Donald Snoek, appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for a conditional discharge at this time and holding that arguments about alternative conditions should be made at a future hearing before the Board.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a restriction of the accused's liberty following his admission to the hospital after an assault in the community.

The accused, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, exhibited violent behaviour triggered by sensory sensitivities and changes in routine.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty from October 30, 2024, to December 3, 2024, was significant but necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to public safety, and commended the treatment team for subsequently discharging him back to his family with increased supports.

The Ministry of the Attorney General requested an early hearing to add a no-contact condition and a geographic boundary restriction to the accused's disposition, following his NCR finding for manslaughter.

The Ontario Review Board ordered a condition prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the victim's immediate family and a 150-metre restriction from their homes, workplaces, or places of worship.

However, the Board declined to impose the broad geographic boundary restriction, finding it was not necessary or appropriate given the accused's clinical stability and the potential negative impact on his reintegration.

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

The accused has schizophrenia and a substance use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Disposition at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, finding it necessary and appropriate to manage the risk while meeting the accused's needs.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and other offences due to schizophrenia and intellectual disability.

All parties jointly recommended the continuation of a conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but is doing well in his current supervised residence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the same terms as the previous year.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and failing to comply with probation.

The accused sought a conditional discharge, while the hospital and Crown recommended maintaining the detention disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia, paraphilia, and recent increases in socially inappropriate behaviours towards females.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition to ensure the hospital retains the ability to approve accommodation, while removing the substance abstention provision and reducing reporting requirements.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and weapons offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders, had been stable and was preparing for a gradual return to community living.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety if she decompensates.

The Board ordered the continuation of a detention disposition to manage the risk while supporting her reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other offences, has diagnoses of schizophrenia and severe stimulant use disorder.

Despite recent progress in a residential treatment program, the accused remains vulnerable to relapse and rapid mental health deterioration.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for two counts of attempted murder.

The Board accepted the hospital's risk assessment that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but that this risk can be managed in the community.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, requiring the accused to reside at his family home and abide by a no-contact order, but declined to impose mandatory urine screens or a consent to treatment clause.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for assault and assault causing bodily harm and was remitted to the Ontario Review Board.

At the initial hearing, the parties jointly submitted that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing psychotic symptoms from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a detention order on a general forensic unit with privileges, noting the need for further treatment, medication optimization, and diagnostic clarification.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and mischief after shoving an elderly woman, causing her death.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the panel found that the accused, who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a history of medication non-compliance, continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

Accepting a joint recommendation, the Board ordered the accused detained at a psychiatric hospital on a general forensic unit with discretionary privileges, including indirectly supervised community passes.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder after killing his brother while experiencing a severe psychotic decompensation.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital recommended a detention order with limited privileges, citing the accused's partial insight and recent requests to discontinue his antipsychotic medication.

The Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Applying the factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the Board ordered a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with privileges up to and including accompanied community passes, but declined to grant indirectly supervised community access.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and attempt kidnapping.

The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, remains stable in the community but continues to hold fixed delusional beliefs and intends to stop his antipsychotic medication once no longer under the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to his existing conditional discharge, but reduced his minimum reporting requirement to once every three months.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault and uttering threats, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and a mild intellectual disability.

The hospital presented evidence that while the accused had a positive year with fewer hospital admissions, he continues to struggle with treatment compliance and substance use.

The Board applied the Winko test and concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity for first-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, has been detained in a hospital with a plan for gradual transition to a supervised community residence.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The current detention order, allowing for residence in a 24-hour supervised community accommodation, was maintained as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board considered whether it has jurisdiction to review a hospital's decision to place a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) accused in locked seclusion for more than seven days.

The hospital argued that seclusion is authorized by the Mental Health Act and common law, not by authority delegated by the Board, and thus falls outside the Board's review jurisdiction.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the authority to seclude an NCR accused flows from Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code and operates in harmony with provincial legislation.

The Board concluded that seclusion constitutes a significant restriction on liberty and is subject to mandatory notice and review by the Board.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for the abduction of a person under 14 years of age.

The accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, had been residing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The parties jointly recommended the continuation of the current detention order.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, noting that medication noncompliance or a lack of support could lead to a relapse of psychotic symptoms and an increased risk of violence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order to ensure the hospital retains the authority to manage her transition to community living.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assaulting a peace officer.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had shown marked improvement in medication compliance, engagement with the treatment team, and insight over the past year.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but concluded that a conditional discharge, rather than continued detention, was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The conditional discharge included terms to report monthly, abstain from substances, and consent to treatment.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of sexual assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his disposition.

The hospital and Crown recommended a continuation of the detention order, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of violence, substance use, major mental disorder, and recent unstable behaviour including substance use and going AWOL.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, finding it necessary to adequately manage his risk and provide necessary supervision.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for several offences committed during an acute episode of delirium.

The Ontario Review Board subsequently issued a detention order, finding he posed a significant threat to public safety.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it failed to identify evidence meeting the high threshold for a significant threat and failed in its inquisitorial duty to probe the equivocal evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the detention order was set aside, and an absolute discharge was granted.