Leisha Senko

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) requested party status at the accused's upcoming annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board, as the current hospital (Waypoint) intended to recommend the accused's transfer to CAMH.

The Chair of the Board denied the request for party status, finding that CAMH did not have a substantial interest in protecting the accused's interests under s. 672.5(4) of the Criminal Code.

However, CAMH was permitted to participate in the hearing as a non-party to lead evidence and make submissions regarding the proposed transfer.

The appellant, Geoffrey Le Feuvre, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), arguing the Board's finding of significant public threat was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found the appeal moot because a subsequent urgent hearing resulted in a new disposition transferring the appellant to a different facility with community living privileges.

The court declined to hear the appeal on its merits due to the material change in circumstances and ordered an expedited new hearing by the Board to assess the significant threat issue based on the appellant's current situation.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition.

The Board had rejected both a conditional discharge and a community living clause, despite the hospital's recommendation for the latter for therapeutic and practical reasons.

The Court of Appeal found the Board erred in rejecting the inclusion of a community living clause, as it was deemed therapeutically beneficial and practically necessary for the appellant's progress and access to appropriate care.

The appeal was allowed to vary the disposition to include the community living provision, while upholding the Board's decision against a conditional discharge.

This is an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for uttering threats and possessing a weapon.

The ORB upheld a detention order, finding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant challenged the ORB's finding of significant threat, arguing the evidence did not support it under the Winko test, and that the Board erred by not granting a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no fault with the ORB's comprehensive analysis of the Winko test and its decision not to grant a conditional discharge given the appellant's history of substance abuse, medication non-compliance, and aggression following a previous conditional discharge.

Gurdev Singh Multani appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge after he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (NCRMD) for uttering threats.

He sought an absolute discharge and also filed motions to dismiss the original offence and claim damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the argument regarding the justification of conditions was raised too late, as the appellant had previously agreed to the terms if a significant threat was found.

The court also dismissed the motions, stating it lacked jurisdiction to reverse the NCRMD finding on an appeal from an ORB disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for aggravated assault and weapon possession, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order at a forensic hospital.

He argued the Board made material factual errors and that he should be granted an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the Board made mischaracterizations of the evidence, these errors did not impact the reasonableness of its risk assessment or disposition.

The court concluded that the Board understood the correct factual context when its reasons were read as a whole, and that the detention order remained the least onerous and restrictive disposition consistent with public safety, given the appellant's ongoing substance abuse and lack of insight into his mental illness.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed an Ontario Review Board order requiring his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint).

The transfer was necessitated by the appellant's persistent harassing and stalking behaviour towards female staff at CAMH, which had exhausted CAMH's resources and posed a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's decision-making process, no reasonable apprehension of bias from the panel's composition, and that the Board's decision to transfer was reasonable given the safety risks and the exhaustion of CAMH's resources, particularly the need for a male-only unit.

This is an appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition that denied an absolute discharge for an individual found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault charges.

The Board determined that the individual continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a lack of insight into their mental illness, persistent cannabis use, and the resulting mental decompensation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence, emphasizing the deference owed to the Board's risk assessment.

The Ontario Review Board failed to fulfill its obligation to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by declining to implement a joint submission for a detention order with community living privileges without considering less onerous alternatives.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ordering the implementation of the joint submission with an additional condition for a three-month review by the Board to assess compliance and determine the appropriate disposition.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) in 2015, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued he no longer posed a significant threat due to medication compliance and incident-free reintegration.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the ORB's decision on a reasonableness standard, considering the paramount public safety, the appellant's mental condition, and reintegration.

Despite progress, the ORB found a significant threat remained due to the appellant's limited insight into his illness, potential for non-adherence to treatment without supervision, and expert psychiatric opinion.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conditional discharge.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for robbery in 2005, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB).

The appeal concerned two conditions: the addition of "supervised accommodation" and the geographical scope of community living.

The appellant argued the "supervised accommodation" condition was unilaterally and unreasonably added without sufficient exploration, citing *Elster (Re)*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this ground, distinguishing *Elster* on procedural fairness grounds, noting counsel had the opportunity to address the issue.

The appellant also argued the geographical scope was inconsistent with the Board's reasons, as the disposition limited community living to "Hamilton" post-transfer, while the Board intended "Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".

The Court agreed with the appellant on this point, finding the Board and parties assumed GTA included Hamilton, and ordered the geographical scope for both pre- and post-transfer accommodation to be "the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton".

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for six counts of sexual assault due to mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition of conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety, citing his stability under strict bail conditions and improved insight.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's finding that a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious harm remained, considering the nature of his illness, past non-compliance, and the recency of his improved insight, despite his recent stability.

The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that granted David Aliko an absolute discharge after he was found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for various offences due to mental disorder.

CAMH sought to set aside the absolute discharge and reinstate a conditional discharge, citing Mr. Aliko's significant deterioration and new criminal charges post-disposition.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence detailing Mr. Aliko's post-discharge behaviour and mental state, which indicated a substantial risk of serious harm to the public without Board supervision.

The court found it was in the interests of justice to admit this evidence.

The appellant, Mark Roberts, sought a suspension of an Ontario Review Board order directing his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health due to his difficult and harassing behaviour towards female staff at CAMH.

The court applied the specific, higher test under s. 672.76 of the Criminal Code for suspending Board dispositions, which requires compelling reasons to doubt the Board's decision's validity or soundness based on the accused's mental condition, and exceptional circumstances.

The court found the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the transfer's impact on his mental condition to justify a suspension, especially considering the severe adverse impact of his conduct on CAMH's operations and staff safety.

The motion for suspension was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for past offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her detention in custody and rehabilitation at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

Previously, she had been on a conditional discharge but exhibited declining mental stability and inconsistent attendance at appointments.

Despite recommendations from her physician, hospital counsel, and the Crown for a continued conditional discharge, the ORB found she posed a significant public safety threat due to marked deterioration in her stability and past threatening behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the ORB's decision as reasonable, emphasizing the ORB's expertise and the need to consider future treatment beyond mere reattendance mechanisms.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not criminally responsible for violent acts, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention, with community privileges, was the least onerous disposition.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its threat assessment and in ordering detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasoning was supported by evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of insight into her illness and the risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The court also found no error in the Board's decision to impose a more restrictive disposition given the changed circumstances, including the failure of a previous treatment regime.

Mavis Alexander appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and restricted her privileges to escorted hospital and community access.

The ORB had removed prior conditions allowing for less supervised community access and placement on waitlists for community accommodation, citing her high risk of decompensation, disrobing, and exit-seeking behaviour.

Alexander argued the removal was unreasonable and contrary to Kelly (Re), emphasizing the long waitlists for supportive housing and the therapeutic benefit of such provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's decision.

The Court found the Board's assessment that the conditions lacked an "air of reality" was supported by the evidence, distinguishing the case from Kelly (Re) where community living was therapeutically motivated and not "so unrealistic."

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for multiple offences in 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant remained a significant threat based on expert psychiatric evidence, his history of substance abuse, and recent episodes of decompensation, and that the Board had properly weighed the protective factors favouring his discharge.

The appellant appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to the High Secure Forensic Program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the transfer was not the least onerous or restrictive alternative and that the Board erred by failing to address a "treatment impasse" particularly concerning his aversion to clozapine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the ORB's conclusion that the transfer was "necessary and appropriate" to manage public safety risk and meet the appellant's needs.

The court also found no evidence of a treatment impasse before the Board that would warrant intervention.

The appellant, Prof. Starson, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in concluding he remained a significant threat to public safety, failing to consider a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition, and providing direction to the Hospital instead of ordering a discharge plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the Board's decision.

The court upheld the Board's finding that the appellant lacked insight into his mental illness and would pose a significant public risk without medication, justifying a detention order.

The court also found the Board's direction to the Hospital regarding a discharge plan was appropriate.