Meaghan McMahon

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for indecent acts and breaking and entering, eloped from the hospital while on an indirectly supervised pass.

Upon his return, the hospital significantly increased the restrictions on his liberty by confining him to the forensic rehabilitation unit and removing his privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the increased restrictions pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Board found that the hospital's decision to increase the restrictions was warranted, reasonable, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option to manage the accused's risk to public safety and his care, given his rapid decompensation, substance use, and medication non-adherence during his elopement.

The Ontario Review Board held an early review and restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found NCR for child abduction and other offences.

The hospital requested a transfer of the accused's care to the Brockville Mental Health Centre and the removal of community living passes, citing her lack of progress, rule-breaking, and antisocial personality disorder.

The Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and approved the transfer to Brockville, noting it offered better programming and a graduated privilege structure.

However, the Board declined to remove the community living passes, finding the disposition did not need to be more restrictive.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether the accused represented a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder rendered him highly likely to act out violently when symptomatic.

The Board concluded that the accused posed a significant threat to public safety and ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including prohibitions on contact with persons under 16 years of age.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for abduction and other offences.

The accused had repeatedly breached hospital rules, relapsed into substance abuse, and evaded apprehension after being discharged from a residential treatment program.

The hospital sought to continue the detention order and requested a transfer to the Brockville Mental Health Centre due to the accused's allegations of assault by a co-patient.

The Board maintained the detention order, found the restriction of liberty necessary and appropriate, but denied the transfer request, concluding that a treatment impasse had not been established and the accused still had a working connection with her current treatment team.

The appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for charges of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, resisting a peace officer, and breach of probation.

The appeal was based on the entry of an invalid plea of 'not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder' and the trial judge's failure to provide adequate reasons for the NCRMD finding under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the errors.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, quashed the NCR verdict, and ordered a new trial, noting the serious miscarriage of justice that resulted in the appellant's deprivation of liberty for nearly six years.

The charges were subsequently withdrawn upon the appellant entering into a peace bond.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment and disturbing a place of worship.

At the disposition hearing, the accused sought an absolute discharge, noting a recent absolute discharge granted by the Quebec tribunal for similar offences.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizoaffective disorder, limited insight into the need for multidisciplinary treatment, and the risk of medication non-compliance if discharged absolutely.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and multiple substance use disorders, had made some progress but continued to struggle with substance use in a challenging group home environment.

Based on a joint submission and psychiatric evidence indicating a continued high risk of future violence, the Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the current detention disposition at the hospital remain in place.

The appellant appealed a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) verdict entered on February 24, 2017, following a psychiatric assessment that concluded the appellant did not know his actions were wrong due to untreated schizophrenia.

The appeal was based on serious procedural defects at the hearing, including failure to arraign the appellant, failure to take a plea, failure to make elections on four of five charges, failure to read facts into the record, absence of viva voce evidence, and failure to address the appellant or allow him to speak.

The Crown conceded the procedural flaws warranted setting aside the verdict.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCRMD verdict, and ordered a new trial.

The accused was charged with causing unnecessary pain to an animal after stomping on a Canada Goose gosling.

He was found unfit to stand trial due to frontotemporal dementia and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board found that he remains permanently unfit to stand trial as his neurocognitive disorder renders him unable to meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board also found that he currently poses a significant risk to the safety of the public due to his lack of community supports.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge, agreeing with the joint recommendation of the parties, as it is the least onerous disposition capable of protecting the public.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual hearing to determine whether the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault, continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder, and recently experienced psychotic symptoms leading to hospital readmissions after consuming cannabis.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order at the secure forensic unit.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for several violent offences and was subject to a conditional discharge.

At his annual review hearing under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board considered whether he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board found that while the accused had made gains and his schizophrenia was in remission with medication, his ongoing cannabis use and need for oversight meant he still posed a significant threat.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with reduced reporting conditions.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible, was subject to a disposition allowing community privileges.

After a positive drug screen, he eloped for three days.

Upon his return, the hospital significantly increased the restrictions on his liberty by admitting him to a high secure unit.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code and found that the hospital's decision to readmit him to the secure unit and the continued restrictions were necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive response available.

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

The hospital and the Attorney-General recommended a renewed detention disposition, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted the expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders, would likely decompensate and pose a significant threat to public safety if released to a shelter environment.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat and ordered a detention disposition to manage his risk while meeting his treatment needs.

The Township of Carling brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Gordon Arthur Mason, to answer outstanding undertakings and improperly refused questions from his examination for discovery, and to deliver a fresh, particularized affidavit of documents.

The motion arose from a property dispute where the plaintiff alleged regulatory negligence and other misconduct against the Township regarding a shore road allowance and structures on a neighbour's property.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Township had not established a waiver of solicitor-client privilege over the entire Petch file, nor had it proven that further relevant documents were withheld or that the plaintiff's affidavit of documents was so poorly drafted as to require re-organization.

The Crown brought a motion for certiorari and mandamus in a dangerous offender application, challenging the sentencing judge's decision to rule Victim Impact Statements (VIS) inadmissible without reviewing them.

The VIS related to uncharged conduct that had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Superior Court granted certiorari, finding that the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the VIS before ruling on their admissibility.

The court directed the sentencing judge to hear the VIS in a voir dire, emphasizing the broad range of information required in dangerous offender hearings and the procedural fairness owed to all parties, including victims.

The Appellant appealed convictions for assault with a weapon and sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to address significant inconsistencies in the Complainant's evidence and by applying a stricter level of scrutiny to the Appellant's evidence.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the credibility findings were entitled to deference, and no uneven scrutiny of evidence occurred.

The court affirmed that a trial judge is not required to reconcile every minor inconsistency or explicitly address every argument, provided the reasons demonstrate an intelligible and logical path to the conclusion.

The appellant, K.T., appealed his conviction for second-degree murder of his father, a judge-alone circumstantial case.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the movement of the deceased's body, the assessment of post-offence conduct (flight to Montreal with the deceased's belongings), and various factual inferences drawn from the evidence, including DNA, fingerprints, and the murder weapon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's careful and extensive reasons, which were well-rooted in the evidentiary record and properly rejected alternative theories.

The self-represented accused, who is on the autism spectrum, sought to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on potential prejudice against persons on the autism spectrum.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Chouhan, the trial judge permitted the challenge, finding a reasonable possibility that bias or prejudicial attitudes exist in the community.

The judge also exercised her discretion to allow the accused and the Crown to alternate posing the challenge for cause questions to the jurors, departing from the general rule that the trial judge should pose the questions, in order to maintain the appearance of objective neutrality and accommodate the accused's strong preference.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2008 for aggravated assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue her detention order.

She sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the Board failed to adequately explain its finding that she remained a significant threat to public safety and neglected its inquisitorial duty to explore less restrictive dispositions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons transparent and intelligible, and that it had no further inquisitorial duty given the record and the appellant's position that she did not want restrictions.

The appellant appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with community living privileges, arguing the Board failed to adequately consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was supported by the treating psychiatrist's opinion, which cited the appellant's poor insight and ambivalence to medication.

The court also addressed a moot issue regarding temporary liberty restriction due to early COVID-19 protocols, noting the Board's reasons properly advised the Hospital to consider individual clinical opinions in future.

The appeal was dismissed.