Matthew Gregory Eaton-Kent

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review four restrictions of liberty (seclusions) imposed on the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The hospital presented evidence that the seclusions were necessary due to the accused's escalating violent behaviour, threats, and refusal to take antipsychotic medication.

The accused conceded that the initial decisions to seclude were justified but challenged the length of the detentions.

The Board found that all four seclusions were justified, necessary, and the least restrictive measures available to manage the risk of harm to others.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing and four restriction of liberty hearings for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and antisocial personality disorder, had experienced a deterioration in his mental state after his medication was reduced.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage his risk.

The Board renewed the detention disposition and found that the four periods of seclusion were warranted and the least restrictive options available at the time.

The offender, D.F., was sentenced for sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of a probation order involving a 14-year-old complainant.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 6 to 8 years, while the Defence proposed 3 to 4 years.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the complainant's vulnerability, the use of force, the offender's extensive criminal record, and his disregard for court orders.

Mitigating factors included the offender's own childhood trauma, delays in the sentencing process, stringent bail conditions, and demonstrated remorse.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offenses against children.

D.F. was sentenced to 5 years, 6 months, and 5 days for sexual interference (sexual assault stayed), plus 30 days concurrent for the probation breach, along with various ancillary orders.

The accused, Mylo Barreto, was charged with assault causing bodily harm, robbery, and unlawful confinement against Allan Howe, his landlord.

The incident arose from a rent dispute and pending eviction.

Howe testified to a prolonged, violent attack by Barreto and two friends, resulting in significant injuries and theft of money.

Barreto admitted causing injuries but claimed self-defence, denying the involvement of his friends, confinement, or theft.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses and the validity of the self-defence claim.

The court found Howe's testimony compelling and corroborated by physical evidence, while Barreto's self-defence claim was inconsistent with the extensive injuries inflicted and lacked credibility.

The court rejected Barreto's evidence and found the Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his conviction for accessing child pornography, seeking to set aside his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant alleged counsel failed to review a police statement video and provided erroneous advice regarding the mandatory minimum sentence.

The court found counsel's actions and advice were deficient but concluded these deficiencies did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the appellant's plea was effectively ratified after he learned the correct mandatory minimum sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.