Maya Kotob

The appellant, who had been found not criminally responsible for violent offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred in rejecting an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given expert evidence that the appellant posed a high risk of violence, lacked insight, and was unwilling to follow conditions.

A detention order was found to be the least restrictive disposition.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several assaults, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge was appropriate and that his risk could be managed in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded a detention order was necessary due to the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, his substance use, and the need for proactive intervention to prevent decompensation.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board order detaining her in the General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for charges of possession of a weapon for dangerous purposes, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault.

She sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order, finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety based on her active psychiatric symptoms, stated intention to cease medication if released, vulnerability to opiate-based medications, and history of medication non-adherence.

The court found the Board's reasoning sound and the disposition reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and a finding of incapacity regarding antipsychotic medications and a Community Treatment Plan (CTP).

The appellant argued the Board erred in fact and law by misapprehending evidence and misapplying statutory tests under the Health Care Consent Act and Mental Health Act.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, found the Board's decisions were reasonable, as it properly weighed the evidence of physicians and family, and correctly applied the legal tests for capacity and CTO issuance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a 24-year-old man diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment and confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued that he did better off the CTO and that his suicide attempt while on a previous CTO demonstrated that the CTO caused substantial mental deterioration.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's decisions.

The court found that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant lacked insight into his illness and would likely suffer substantial mental deterioration without the CTO, given his history of decompensation and non-compliance with medication when not subject to an order.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication, specifically under the second branch of s. 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act, focusing on the ability to appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider his desire to enlist in the Canadian military as a reason for refusing medication.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, as it properly concluded the appellant was unable to appreciate the manifestations of his mental condition, rendering him incapable of weighing the benefits and risks of treatment, consistent with Supreme Court jurisprudence.