Michael Davies

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming her incapacity to make decisions regarding admission to a care facility.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence about her medication levels, ignored helpful evidence, and improperly focused on her best interests rather than her capacity.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly applied the statutory test for capacity.

The court held that the appellant's inability to understand the need for medication and supervision, and her lack of insight into her condition, supported the Board's finding of incapacity.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to expressly address the application of the Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge should have addressed them, citing R. v. Kakekagamick.

However, because the custodial portion of the sentence had already been served and the appellant was doing well with a proposed parole plan, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting the respondent a conditional discharge.

The respondent, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, had previously caused the death of a police officer while psychotic and unmedicated.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, noting the respondent's history of medication non-compliance, social isolation, and lack of relationship with his treatment team.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conditional discharge, and reinstated the hospital detention order permitting residence in the community.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder and detained in a mental health facility, sought an absolute discharge and treatment orders as remedies under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada established a new approach for determining whether an administrative tribunal is a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1).

The Court held that the Ontario Review Board has the jurisdiction to grant Charter remedies because it has the authority to decide questions of law.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the specific remedies sought by the appellant—an absolute discharge for a dangerous patient and a treatment order—were expressly precluded by the Board's statutory scheme under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board ordered an independent psychiatric assessment for an accused and directed the Attorney General to pay the costs.

The Attorney General successfully applied to quash the funding order.

The Board appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board lacks jurisdiction under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code to order the Attorney General or any other party to pay for an assessment, and that the Board must bear the costs through its own budget.

The appellant appealed from a conviction by the Ontario Court of Justice.

At the request of the appellant, the appeals were abandoned.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board failed to apply the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code when it denied a community living condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board was aware of and applied the correct test.

The Court held that the evidence, including the appellant's continuing substance abuse and personality disorder, amply supported the Board's conclusion that a community placement condition did not meet the mandated test.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Charter issues raised were bound by previous decisions and that the Board's decision was reasonable on the record.

The Court also held that the Board did not err by failing to initiate its own inquiries beyond the material placed before it.

The appellant appealed a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) and a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the NCR finding, holding that the appellant's guilty plea was unequivocal and there was no dispute regarding fitness.

The appeal from the Board's order was dismissed as moot because the appellant was scheduled to be moved to another facility.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

The Board found that the appellant would stop his medication and abuse substances if given an absolute discharge, but failed to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's failure to specifically inquire into the availability and propriety of a conditional discharge as the least onerous disposition was an error of law.

The Court also noted the Board improperly considered non-conviction charges in its risk assessment.

The disposition was quashed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision to designate the respondent as a long-term offender rather than a dangerous offender.

The respondent, a diagnosed psychopath with a history of severe domestic violence, was found to pose an extremely high risk of violent recidivism.

The trial judge imposed a ten-year sentence followed by a ten-year supervision order with strict conditions, hoping his risk would 'burn out' by age 45.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by relying on strict community supervision conditions that were practically impossible to implement due to a lack of resources.

The Court substituted a dangerous offender designation, emphasizing that public protection is paramount and cannot be compromised by assuming unavailable resources will materialize.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting a witness's out-of-court statement to police, made improper comments about the witness's reluctance to testify, and improperly challenged the appellant's credibility during his testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearsay statement met the reliability requirements under the principled approach, the trial judge's comments on the witness's demeanour were permissible, and the comment during the appellant's testimony related only to a peripheral issue.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition granting the respondent an absolute discharge.

The respondent had been found not guilty of second-degree murder by reason of insanity in 1983.

The Board concluded the respondent posed a minimal risk to the public, relying partly on his attending psychiatrist's belief that he would continue his relationship with the hospital.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that the respondent severed his relationship with the psychiatrist following the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it undermined a central premise of the Board's reasoning, and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained at a maximum-security psychiatric hospital for 28 years, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention.

The appellant had a long-standing practice of refusing to attend Board hearings, refusing counsel, and refusing all psychiatric treatment.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board erred in law by failing to recognize its inquisitorial role under the Criminal Code.

Given the treatment impasse, the Board had a duty to consider making further inquiries rather than simply recapitulating the static situation.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered, with the Court noting the Board has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae to assist in such cases.

The young person appealed the custodial sentence imposed for a violent offence.

The Court of Appeal found that while a period of custody was justified, the trial judge erred in principle by failing to credit the young person for 8 days of pre-trial custody and time spent in pre-sentence house arrest.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to 3 months of open custody and 1.5 months of supervision.

The young person appealed her sentence for her involvement in a home invasion assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider mitigating circumstances for the young person, despite doing so for her four co-accused.

Given the young person's compliance with strict bail conditions, her stable living environment, and fresh evidence of her pregnancy, the appeal was allowed and her sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of assault and two counts of uttering threats against his wife.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed, though his sentence was varied to a conditional discharge.

He sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to consider inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the summary conviction appeal court judge's conclusion that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to deference and supported by the record.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent.

The respondent abandoned his conviction appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's sentence appeal, finding no basis for a conditional sentence to be added to a penitentiary term.

The sentence was varied to two years' incarceration to be served concurrently with the larger sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction by Justice Albert J. Roy of the Superior Court of Justice.

The conviction appeal was abandoned.

The appellant challenged jury convictions for multiple sexual offences against two child complainants and appealed an eight-year penitentiary sentence.

The court rejected the unreasonable verdict argument, holding that despite material inconsistencies, the core allegations remained intact and the jury was properly instructed on credibility concerns.

The court also held that medical opinion evidence concerning vaginal penetration was relevant to one complainant but irrelevant to counts involving the other complainant; however, the evidentiary error and absence of a limiting instruction caused no substantial wrong and were cured under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

On sentence, the court found the trial judge had set the range too high by over-relying on a more aggravated comparator case and reduced the custodial sentence to six and a half years, in addition to pre-sentence custody.