L.K. Wildman

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

The accused had previously been found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault causing bodily harm and break and enter.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to suffer from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lacks insight into his illness, and experiences fixed grandiose and paranoid delusions.

The Board concluded that the accused remains unfit to stand trial but not permanently so, as further treatment options like clozapine remain available.

Finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Board ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The accused was sentenced following convictions after trial for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, related firearms offences, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of cocaine.

Police discovered a loaded revolver and knife on the accused during a pat‑down search following a traffic stop, and crack cocaine was later found in the rear seat of the police vehicle used to transport him.

The court considered aggravating factors including possession of a loaded handgun in public, the combination of firearms and drugs, and the presence of multiple weapons, while also weighing mitigating factors such as the offender’s lack of criminal record, family support, disability, and rehabilitative prospects.

Relying on jurisprudence addressing the constitutional status of the mandatory minimum for s. 95 offences and sentencing ranges for loaded handgun possession, the court imposed a global sentence of three years.

After applying credit for pre‑trial custody and strict bail conditions including house arrest, the effective custodial sentence was reduced to 20 months.

The accused was stopped for driving a vehicle with heavily tinted windows, leading the officer to smell fresh marijuana and conduct a vehicle and pat-down search that revealed a concealed knife and loaded handgun.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) rights.

The court found that the officer lacked the subjective belief required for an arrest, rendering the searches unlawful under ss. 8 and 9, and also found a s. 10(b) breach due to a delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police conduct was not egregious, the evidence was highly reliable, and society's interest favoured admission.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.