Leisha Senko

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering her detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

She argued the ORB erred in finding she posed a significant threat, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's determination of significant threat was reasonable, based on her history of violence, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight into her illness and medication, and the risk of decompensation leading to violent behaviour if medication ceased.

The court also upheld the ORB's refusal of a conditional discharge, noting its inquisitorial function was fulfilled and a detention order was necessary for public safety, as the Mental Health Act would not provide sufficient control in all foreseeable situations.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), seeking a conditional discharge.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's continued alcohol consumption, which increased his risk of violence and non-compliance with medication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered alcohol use as relevant to public safety and that its decision was reasonable, given the need for safeguards to manage the appellant's risk in the community.

Martin Hall, found not criminally responsible in 2006 due to mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's 2021 disposition ordering his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with hospital and community privileges, including approved community accommodation.

Hall argued the Board's finding of significant public safety threat was unjustified and that it erred by not seeking further evidence on the sufficiency of the Mental Health Act for committal if a conditional discharge was granted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly Dr. Ali's opinion that supervision was necessary to prevent decompensation and risk to public safety.

The court also found the Board had sufficient evidence regarding the Mental Health Act's adequacy.

Mr. Ojaghi appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board, arguing it was unreasonable and seeking a conditional discharge.

He also challenged the Board's removal of a travel provision from his previous disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding it reasonable and necessary for public safety given the applicant's non-compliance with medication.

However, the court found that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by removing the travel provision without notice or inviting submissions, and therefore reinstated that provision.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to impose a detention order instead of a conditional discharge, arguing procedural unfairness due to lack of notice regarding the rejection of a joint submission.

The Court of Appeal found that a joint submission for conditional discharge did exist, despite the Crown's initial reservation and a dispute over a cannabis condition.

However, the court determined that the Board members' probing questions during the hearing provided adequate, albeit not ideal, notice that the joint submission was in peril.

Fresh evidence of the appellant's subsequent readmissions to hospital further supported the reasonableness of the detention order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge allowing him to return to his independent apartment was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was entitled to deference and reasonably concluded that the appellant required close 24-hour supervision due to his history of decompensation, violent behaviour, and substance abuse.

The appellant appealed two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

The first disposition, which transferred him to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), was dismissed as moot by the Court of Appeal as it had been superseded.

The second disposition, which ordered his detention at the highly secure Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care due to worsening behaviour and significant threat to public safety, was upheld.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, emphasizing that public safety, including the safety of hospital staff and co-patients, is the paramount consideration under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and deferred to the Board's expertise in managing the risk posed by the individual.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences against intimate partners, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

He argued the ORB erred in finding him a significant threat and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge, emphasizing a four-year period of stability while on bail.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's decision, finding it reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to his psychiatric history, ongoing symptoms, medication non-compliance, and impaired insight.

The court also found that a detention order was necessary given the inadequacy of the Mental Health Act to manage his risk, and that the ORB had implicitly considered and rejected a conditional discharge.

Robiel Negash, found not criminally responsible for robbery, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the ORB majority erred by applying a "possibility" rather than "probability" test for significant risk to public safety and failed to address inconsistencies in the treating psychiatrist's evidence.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the ORB for a fresh determination.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for criminal harassment and failure to comply, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (the "Board") decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board misapplied the "significant threat" test and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight into his mental illness and medication needs, and his stated desire to discontinue medication.

The court emphasized the deference owed to the Board's determinations and found its decision reasonable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed two appeals concerning the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) jurisdiction to conduct disposition review hearings by videoconference without the accused's consent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant, found not criminally responsible (NCR), objected to a virtual hearing.

The ORB proceeded without consent and subsequently ordered her detention.

The Superior Court quashed the ORB's jurisdictional ruling via certiorari.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal of the certiorari order, affirming that the ORB lacked statutory authority under the Criminal Code to compel virtual attendance without consent.

It also allowed the applicant's appeal of the detention order, finding it void due to the ORB's violation of procedural rules (Rule 43.03(5) of the Criminal Proceedings Rules) by proceeding while a certiorari application was pending.

The court emphasized that the Criminal Code implies a right to physical presence unless consent is given for virtual attendance, and that the pandemic does not justify exceeding statutory jurisdiction.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for past violent offences due to mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the ORB's conclusion of significant public safety risk was unsupported and its reasons insufficient.

The Court of Appeal found the ORB's conclusion reasonable, based on evidence of the appellant's major mental illness, lack of insight, intent to stop medication, and unwillingness to abstain from drug use, which posed a substantial risk of decompensation and violent relapse.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the ORB's conditional discharge.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for prior offences, appealed a 2019 Ontario Review Board disposition that continued his conditional discharge and imposed new alcohol and drug testing requirements.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its application of the significant threat test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat was not supported by the evidence and lacked proper analysis regarding the degree of risk or gravity of apprehended harm.

The court emphasized that factors such as lack of insight, potential medication non-compliance, or substance abuse do not automatically establish a significant threat without specific analysis of the risk of serious criminal conduct.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted, although the issue was rendered moot by a subsequent 2020 Board decision granting an absolute discharge.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible in 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention with privileges.

He argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat and that there was an impasse in finding community housing due to his substance use.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's factual misapprehension regarding recent charges was immaterial and upheld the finding that he remained a significant threat.

The Court dismissed the appeal but amended the disposition to include the Board's direction from its reasons that the hospital look at housing that does not require abstinence.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible, objected to the Ontario Review Board holding her annual disposition review hearing by videoconference during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Board ruled it had the authority to proceed by videoconference without her consent and over her objections.

The applicant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the ruling.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that under section 672.5(13) of the Criminal Code, the Board may only hold a hearing by videoconference if the accused consents, and therefore the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for three counts of assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a forensic hospital.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's longstanding, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight, and severe substance abuse issues—which predictably lead to decompensation and aggressive behaviour—supported the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to the public.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual offences involving a child, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition maintaining his detention with limited privileges.

He argued the Board misapprehended his request for indirectly supervised community access, provided inadequate reasons, and issued an unreasonable disposition.

The Court of Appeal held the Board understood the dual nature of his requests and sufficiently explained its reasoning.

The psychiatric evidence demonstrated that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and required continuous supervision, particularly given the risk of reoffending against children.

The Board’s refusal to grant broader indirectly supervised community passes was therefore reasonable.

The Crown brought an application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code seeking to have its central witness in a sexual assault case testify by videolink from Regina, Saskatchewan, rather than attend in person in Barrie, Ontario.

The witness had relocated out of province and faced financial hardship and an unspecified health issue.

The court dismissed the application, finding that where credibility is central to the case and the witness is a primary Crown witness, the defendant's right to make full answer and defence requires the witness to attend in court before the trier of fact.

The court emphasized that while videolink technology is a useful tool, it should not be used where it would impair the defendant's ability to confront the witness and the court's ability to assess credibility through observation of demeanour and facial expressions.