Margaret Addie

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault in 1996.

The hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the detention order with an increased reporting frequency due to recent mental health decompensations and an upcoming destabilizing housing transition.

The accused did not attend the hearing but his counsel took no position.

The Board unanimously found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight, history of violence and fire-setting, and reliance on external supervision for medication compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with increased reporting to closely monitor the accused during his transition to new community housing.

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

The accused had made significant progress, remained stable on medication, and abstained from substances while detained at the hospital with community living privileges.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded that his risk could now be safely managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with strict conditions, including residence requirements and ongoing psychiatric oversight.

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 assault and weapons charges, suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

The clinical team testified that while the accused has made progress living in the community in supervised housing, he continues to experience rapid fluctuations in his mental state and ongoing psychotic symptoms.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered that his care continue under the terms of his current Disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, was subject to a mandatory annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused had recently transferred to a new hospital and struggled with sleep cycle disruption due to cell phone overuse, leading to non-engagement with treatment.

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

The Board ordered a disposition detaining the accused at the hospital with privileges up to and including living in the community in supervised accommodation.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for weapon offences in 2010.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, has maintained medication compliance but remains socially withdrawn and refuses to engage with community psychiatrists.

The Board found that he remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge without change, emphasizing the necessity of ongoing treatment team oversight to prevent relapse.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for a young person previously found unfit to stand trial on sexual assault charges.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties and the medical evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, though not permanently unfit.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the same terms as the previous year, noting the accused's significant progress and medication compliance.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been detained at CAMH but living in the community with his family.

The Board found that while the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, his risk could be managed in the community.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions including residence, reporting, and consent to treatment, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences.

All parties agreed the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

Based on evidence that the accused's condition had markedly improved on clozapine with no recent incidents of aggression, the Board ordered his transfer from a high-secure facility to the medium-secure Brockville Mental Health Centre, with accompanied grounds privileges.

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 Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault with a weapon, suffers from Schizophrenia and Major Neurocognitive Disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his fragile mental state, lack of insight, and risk of non-adherence to treatment.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition to ensure public safety and provide the required level of supervision and psychiatric care.

Adrian Williams pleaded guilty to possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, parity, and totality, as well as an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the offender's background, including experiences with anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination.

The Crown sought a four-year consecutive sentence, while the defence proposed three years, arguing the Fentanyl was diluted.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, consecutive to a prior manslaughter conviction, finding the Crown's proposal fit after weighing aggravating factors (subsequent manslaughter conviction, criminal record, institutional misconduct) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, family support, job offer, and social context as it relates to moral culpability).

Deidre Martin was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and weapons dangerous after stabbing her boyfriend, Alejandro Velez.

Martin claimed self-defence, alleging Velez assaulted and sexually assaulted her.

The court assessed the credibility of both parties, the scene evidence, and the three components of self-defence (trigger, motive, and response) under Section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found significant credibility concerns with Velez's testimony and that the scene evidence was inconsistent with his account but consistent with Martin's.

Despite inconsistencies in Martin's testimony, the court found reasonable doubt that Velez did not assault and sexually assault her, and that Martin acted with a defensive purpose.

While the proportionality of Martin's response (using a hunting knife and inflicting serious wounds) raised concerns, the court considered her vulnerability, history of domestic violence, and the spontaneous nature of the act.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Martin was found not guilty on all charges.

Trayon Johnson, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, sought an order under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to challenge prospective jurors for cause.

He proposed augmenting the traditional *Parks* questions with multiple-choice options to address subconscious racial bias against men of African ancestry.

The court acknowledged the existence of racial stereotypes and unconscious bias, finding that appropriately-constructed multiple-choice questions could be more effective than standard "yes/no" questions in identifying such biases.

The proposed multiple-choice questions were approved to ensure an impartial jury.

Trayon Johnson, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, applied to introduce his exculpatory police statement made on October 20, 2017, under the *Edgar* exception.

The court granted the motion, finding that despite instances of dishonesty and manipulation during the 12-hour interview, a contextual analysis left doubt regarding the spontaneity of the statement.

In such cases, the statement should be admitted for the jury to assess its weight and the accused's credibility, not for the truth of its contents.

The jury will be instructed on how to use the statement to assess Johnson's reaction and credibility when confronted with the allegations.

This decision addresses jury instructions on modes of participation for two accused, Richard Ireland and Trayon Johnson, in a joint jury trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown's application for Ireland as a principal (s. 21(1)(a) Criminal Code) and Johnson as an aider (s. 21(1)(b) Criminal Code) was granted.

The Crown's application for Johnson as a co-principal (s. 21(2) Criminal Code) was dismissed, as was Johnson's request for the jury to be instructed only on s. 21(2) and thus preclude a second-degree murder verdict for him.

The court found an air of reality for Johnson's conviction as an aider but not as a co-principal for second-degree murder.

The applicant, Adrian Williams, sought bail after being charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The application was heard during the COVID-19 pandemic, with expert medical evidence presented regarding the risks of the virus in correctional facilities.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code, including the applicant's criminal record, the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the public health implications of the pandemic.

Despite the public health concerns, the court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given his history of breaching court orders and the extreme violence of the alleged crimes.

Bail was denied.