Maura Jetté

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for multiple murders and sexual offences in the 1970s and 1980s, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a high-security facility.

At his annual review, all parties jointly submitted that he should be transferred to a less secure facility for a 90-day independent psychiatric assessment to explore a potential move to a less secure environment.

The Board rejected the joint submission.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain its rejection of the joint submission, misapprehended the evidence regarding the utility of the assessment, and failed to fulfill its inquisitorial duty to explore the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At his annual review hearing, all parties presented a joint submission to continue his previous disposition, which included unaccompanied privileges.

The Board rejected the joint submission and imposed a more restrictive disposition without giving the parties notice of its intention to do so.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to give the appellant notice that it was inclined to reject the joint submission and an opportunity to lead further evidence or make additional submissions.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at CAMH with a condition allowing him to live in approved community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not ordering a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered the relevant criteria, including the appellant's liberty interest, and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to ensure CAMH could approve his housing as the safest first step for reintegration.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to undue delay.

The delay included a period following a mistrial caused by a misstep by the trial judge.

The application judge characterized this period as institutional delay, noting the unusual circumstances and the failure of the Crown or the court to canvas earlier trial dates.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusions regarding the characterization of the delay or the finding of prejudice, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a dual-status offender found not criminally responsible (NCR) and serving two life sentences for sexual offences, appealed conditions imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board ordered his continued detention at a secure forensic psychiatric facility with conditions restricting his unmonitored use of email and requiring staff escorts for community access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the conditions were reasonable and did not violate the appellant's section 8 Charter rights or the Mental Health Act, as an NCR detainee has a significantly diminished expectation of privacy in a secure institutional setting.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained in a psychiatric facility, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued that his transfer to a more restrictive unit violated his rights under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, and sought a conditional discharge as a stand-alone remedy under section 24(1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's findings that the transfer was necessary due to the appellant's dangerous conduct and did not violate his Charter rights.

The Court also affirmed that the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy, such as a conditional discharge, that would endanger public safety and frustrate its statutory mandate.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention at a mental health facility.

The hospital had significantly increased restrictions on his liberty after he tested positive for illicit drugs and exhibited deteriorating mental health.

The Board conducted a combined restrictions review and annual review, concluding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and that his ongoing detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal standards and that its conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Ontario Review Board, seeking a transfer to another part of the facility to be treated by a different team of doctors due to an alleged treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal to find a treatment impasse was reasonable as the current treatment team had an ongoing plan involving different medication strategies.

The appellant appealed a 2007 disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

However, a subsequent 2008 disposition was made which the appellant did not appeal, and his concerns regarding the panel's composition were addressed at both hearings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital had supported a condition permitting the appellant to live in the community, but the Board did not grant it.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law and held that the Board's decision was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting the appellant's progress and expressing hope for further rehabilitation at his next hearing.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and other offences, as well as his 18-month sentence.

He had fled from police, run over an officer's leg, and resisted arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding his actions were intentional.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge overemphasized general deterrence and failed to adequately consider the appellant's youth, first-offender status, significant rehabilitation prospects, and aboriginal status.

The sentence was varied to three months of time served followed by a 12-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had issued a split decision regarding the appellant's security level and privileges.

The Court of Appeal found that while the case was complex and there was some ambiguity in the evidence, the majority's reasons were not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that a fresh review hearing was scheduled shortly where the appellant's needs and progress could be reassessed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board applied an incorrect legal test by focusing exclusively on public safety and unreasonably disregarded expert evidence that he could be managed in a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered all statutory criteria and balanced the appellant's treatment needs against the risk he posed to the public.

The Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the proposed management plan was speculative and that the appellant was not an appropriate candidate for a medium secure setting due to his unwillingness to undergo a necessary medication trial.