M. Bird

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and a history of substance abuse, had recently missed medication doses and tested positive for cannabis.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his fragile mental state, ongoing negative symptoms, and recent non-compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition, with an amendment requiring the accused to report to the hospital at least once per week while living in the community.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats.

The hospital recommended continuing the detention order but increasing community passes to seven days, despite recent positive urine drug screens for methamphetamines.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the recommended seven-day passes, adding a condition that the accused must return to the hospital for urine drug screening upon request.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and other offences.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a continuation of the detention disposition, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her borderline personality disorder and risk of substance use relapse.

The Board concluded that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate to manage her risk while supporting her transition to independent living in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the Disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, had shown improvement on clozapine but remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board continued the detention order with increased privileges, including indirectly supervised community passes.

However, applying the factors in s. 672.54 and the Sookram decision, the Board declined to include a community living term, finding no immediate prospect of discharge, no waitlist necessity, and a risk that unmet expectations could increase the accused's frustration and risk of violence.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was found unfit to stand trial in 1995 on charges of manslaughter, arson, and breach of probation.

The accused has an intellectual disability and a history of aggressive behaviour, though his condition has stabilized with structured hospital support.

The Board found that the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the Secure Forensic Unit with privileges for community living once an appropriate placement is found.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for offences including uttering threats and possessing a weapon.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended continuing the current detention disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his mental disorder, substance use, and recent incidents of consuming alcohol and shoplifting while in the community.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences.

The hospital recommended continuing the detention order with amendments to expand the accused's travel radius for cultural events and to remove a no-contact condition regarding his mother.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his complex mental health needs, substance use history, and ongoing behavioural issues.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the hospital's recommended amendments, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The hospital and all parties jointly recommended cascading the accused from a detention order to a conditional discharge, noting his stability, compliance with treatment, and lack of recent incidents.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his major mental illness and history of decompensation.

However, balancing the need to protect the public with the accused's reintegration, the Board concluded that a conditional discharge with strict conditions was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to readmit the accused, who had previously been found not criminally responsible and was living in the community.

The accused had missed appointments, refused entry to the outpatient team, and exhibited delusions and medication non-compliance.

Applying the Campbell framework, the Board found that the readmission constituted a significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty.

However, the Board concluded that the restriction was necessary and appropriate to protect public safety, as the accused's functioning had declined and he posed an ongoing risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his mental illnesses, substance use history, and psychopathic traits.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order but expanded the accused's community privileges and geographic travel radius to facilitate his gradual reintegration into supervised community housing.

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

The hospital recommended removing the address specification from his conditional discharge to facilitate a move to a long-term care facility, citing concerns about financial exploitation by a friend and declining care at his current group home.

The Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing symptoms and alcohol use.

However, the Board declined to remove the address specification, finding that doing so would eliminate the requirement for 24/7 supervised accommodation and unnecessarily sever the accused's social ties.

The conditional discharge was maintained without changes.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for committing an indecent act and sexual assault.

The hospital and the Attorney-General recommended a continuation of the detention disposition, and the accused's counsel joined this position.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the hospital's representative, the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing mental illness and need for structure.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention disposition with minor amendments to his community access privileges.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer.

The accused is currently detained at a secure forensic unit with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

The Board considered evidence of recent medication changes, ongoing psychotic symptoms, and incidents of verbal aggression.

Applying the Winko test, the Board concluded the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The detention disposition was renewed, maintaining the possibility of community living to serve as a motivational factor.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The accused has schizophrenia and recently moved into independent living, though he requires ongoing supervision and medication to manage his risk of violence.

The Board accepted a joint submission from the parties and concluded that the current disposition, a detention order with privileges up to and including living in the community, continues to be appropriate to balance public safety and rehabilitation.

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 had been found not criminally responsible for arson.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, substance use history, and partial insight into his illness.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was not appropriate, as the civil commitment mechanisms under the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to protect public safety in the event of rapid decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of a detention disposition, while granting additional indirectly supervised privileges to facilitate community reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and other offences.

The accused has diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and substance use disorders.

While she has maintained employment, she recently experienced readmissions to the hospital due to substance use and has exhibited problematic behaviour and interpersonal conflicts.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of her detention order with modified conditions allowing her to live in approved community accommodation.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and breaches of probation following an incident in an apartment building.

The court relied on video surveillance, 911 call recordings, and witness testimony to assess credibility under the W.(D.) framework.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and failing to keep the peace, but acquitted him of sexual assault and consuming alcohol due to reasonable doubt arising from the complainant's intoxication and lack of corroboration.