Logan Crowell

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for breaches of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had made progress in the community but continued to experience residual psychotic symptoms and superficial insight into his illness.

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

On the joint submission of the parties, the Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with amended privileges, including community living and expanded travel passes.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault due to treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Based on a joint submission and uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused struggles with medication adherence and lacks insight into her illness, the Board found she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of her conditional discharge.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The treatment team reported clinical stability but noted the accused's limited insight and need for 24-hour supervised housing to prevent relapse.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence and a joint submission, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order until suitable supervised housing becomes available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two counts of robbery.

The Board considered expert evidence indicating that while the accused had shown improved stability and medication adherence, he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his primary psychotic disorder and history of substance use.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order with amendments agreed upon by the parties.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a Restriction of Liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The hospital had transferred the accused to a higher security unit following unprovoked assaults on staff and co-patients.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary due to the accused's unpredictable violence driven by impulsivity and autism-related deficits.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order.

The Board declined to remove the requirement for supervised accommodation but removed the condition requiring abstinence from alcohol and drugs, finding it clinically unnecessary.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats and was subject to a detention order at a psychiatric hospital.

At the annual review hearing, the Review Board considered whether the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's history of rapid relapse, polysubstance use, and psychotic symptomatology necessitated ongoing supervision.

The Board concluded that the accused remained a significant threat and ordered the continuation of the existing detention order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and other offences.

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

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a severe alcohol use disorder and organic brain injury, which predictably lead to aggression and violence when intoxicated.

The Board concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition was to continue the detention order, as the accused requires a highly supervised environment to maintain abstinence and medication adherence.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory review hearing.

The hospital, the accused, and the Attorney General jointly recommended an absolute discharge.

The Board found that the accused had demonstrated sustained clinical stability, remained compliant with treatment for schizophrenia, and no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with probation.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the attending psychiatrist and the joint submission of the parties, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness, intellectual deficit, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to a high risk of medication non-adherence and substance use relapse without the structure of a detention order.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, requested a conditional discharge, while the hospital and Attorney General recommended continuing the detention order.

Relying on the hospital report and the treating psychiatrist's evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that maintaining the detention order is the necessary, appropriate, and least onerous disposition to manage the accused's risk while supporting his community living.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and assault.

The hospital, Crown, and accused all conceded that the accused remained a significant threat to the safety of the public due to schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

The Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence that the accused required ongoing supervision to manage medication compliance and cannabis abstinence.

The Board ordered a continuation of the conditional discharge, adding a cannabis prohibition and a consent to treatment clause, while removing outdated no-contact conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault with a weapon.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of problematic substance use and resulting noncompliance with medication.

However, noting his recent stability and insight, the Board ordered a discharge with conditions, including residing in approved housing and consenting to treatment, to support his gradual reintegration into the community.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused represents a significant threat to public safety due to untreated schizophrenia and a history of violence and substance use.

The Board ordered the accused detained at the psychiatric hospital without community living privileges, noting his recent admission, lack of insight, and the need for stabilization and a structured risk assessment.

The plaintiffs successfully resisted a summary judgment motion brought by the defendants in a test case.

The plaintiffs sought enhanced partial indemnity costs of $300,000, while the defendants argued for no costs due to divided success or deferral to the trial judge.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments, finding the plaintiffs were wholly successful in resisting the motion despite failing on a 'boomerang' summary judgment request.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs of $235,768.86, finding the time spent and rates charged were reasonable given the complexity, importance, and high stakes of the test case.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity brought by various Children's Aid Societies (CAS) against Dr. Gideon Koren and the Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) in the context of the "Motherisk Cases." The court partially granted the motions, striking claims for contribution and indemnity based on the Negligence Act, as the CAS was not found liable to the original plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the motions to strike claims for contribution and indemnity based on breach of contract, finding it was not plain and obvious that such claims, including those relying on a principled exception to privity of contract, would fail.

HSC's claim was struck as unopposed.

One of Dr. Koren's crossclaims was struck with leave to amend to properly plead a contract claim.

The court also ordered consolidation of one of Dr. Koren's actions with a related M.M. Action.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against several physicians, nurses, and a hospital, alleging that their negligence during the plaintiff mother's labour and delivery caused the infant plaintiff to suffer a severe hypoxic-ischemic brain injury resulting in cerebral palsy.

The plaintiffs alleged that an artificial rupture of membranes was negligently performed when the fetal head was high, causing a cord prolapse.

The court found that the defendant physicians and nurses met the standard of care, with the exception of one resident physician's failure to document the events, which was not causative.

The court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove factual causation, as the clinical evidence at birth was inconsistent with the infant being completely deprived of oxygen for the 18 minutes following the cord prolapse.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant, acting in person and representing her deceased husband's estate, appealed a decision finding that the former six-month sobriety requirement for liver transplants was moot and that the current eligibility criteria for alcohol-associated liver disease patients do not infringe sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the mootness of the former regime and the constitutionality of the current criteria, finding the criteria were based on medical evidence rather than stereotyping.

The court allowed the appeal relating to the Living Donor Criteria, holding that its constitutionality should only be decided in a live dispute.

A dissenting judge would have dismissed the application entirely on the basis that the self-represented appellant lacked the capacity to bring forward a complex constitutional claim under the public interest standing test.

During a medical malpractice trial, the defendants moved to strike the jury following the plaintiff's closing address.

The court found that plaintiff's counsel crossed the line many times, making numerous misstatements that rendered correction by an appropriate charge impossible.

Concluding that the plaintiff's closing address undermined the fairness of the trial process, the court discharged the jury and determined it would decide the issues of liability and damages itself.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal as frivolous and vexatious.

The appellants failed to respond to the respondents' requests for costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and found the partial indemnity costs sought by The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Mary McConville, Janice Robinson, Rena Knox, and The Hospital for Sick Children to be reasonable.

The appellants were ordered to pay costs to these respondents.