Maura Thompson

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 of assault with a weapon.

Based on the hospital report and the testimony of the assessing doctor, all parties agreed that the accused was now fit to stand trial.

The Board accepted this evidence, found the accused fit to stand trial, and directed that the charges be returned to court.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a restriction of the accused's liberty following his admission to the hospital after an assault in the community.

The accused, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, exhibited violent behaviour triggered by sensory sensitivities and changes in routine.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty from October 30, 2024, to December 3, 2024, was significant but necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to public safety, and commended the treatment team for subsequently discharging him back to his family with increased supports.

The plaintiff, a person under disability due to a catastrophic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident, sought judicial approval of a proposed tort settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement terms, including a $1.2 million payment from the defendant's insurer and the allocation of funds, considering the significant liability risks for the plaintiff (who failed to stop at a stop sign).

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable and excellent given the circumstances, and also approved the plaintiff counsel's reduced contingency fee.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against two children's aid societies.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the respondents' actions in assessing the applicant's mental health and stability were necessary for child protection purposes and not based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual interference contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code and invitation to sexual touching contrary to section 152 of the Criminal Code.

The offences were alleged to have occurred between September 11, 2014 and December 2, 2014.

The complainant was 15 years old at the time; the accused was 24 years old.

The accused claimed he believed the complainant was 17 years old based on her appearance, behaviour, and statements made by her and her friend.

The court found that the accused did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's true age and convicted him on both charges.

The applicant, a wheelchair user, was injured when a bus stopped suddenly.

The insurer terminated attendant care and housekeeping benefits after 104 weeks, finding she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits pending arbitration.

The arbitrator found the applicant established a prima facie case that she suffered a total and permanent loss of use of her left arm, meeting the catastrophic impairment definition.

The arbitrator also found urgency and hardship, as the applicant required additional attendant care following her husband's death to avoid moving to a long-term care facility.

Interim attendant care benefits of $1,117.25 per month were awarded, but interim housekeeping benefits were denied.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming he was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer refused to pay, alleging the applicant wilfully misrepresented that he was involved in an accident.

At the arbitration hearing, the insurer presented expert evidence on physical damage, which concluded that the damage to the vehicles was inconsistent with a collision between them.

The arbitrator accepted the expert evidence, rejected the applicant's testimony, and found that the applicant wilfully misrepresented a material fact.

The application for benefits was dismissed pursuant to section 48(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses.