Michael Baltzan Schloss

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention at the North Bay Regional Health Centre.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the ORB unreasonably focused on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to the exclusion of trauma and Gladue principles, and whether its decision regarding smoking privileges was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground due to the appellant's concessions on the detention disposition.

Regarding smoking, the court found the ORB's decision reasonable, noting the hospital's smoke-free policy and the appellant's past non-compliance with privileges.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR), appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and affirmed the majority's decision for a detention order, rejecting the appellant's request for an absolute or conditional discharge.

However, the court amended the detention order to include specific directives for the hospital to explore culturally appropriate programs, housing, and care for the appellant, particularly in Owen Sound, in accordance with Gladue principles.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not criminally responsible for violent acts, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention, with community privileges, was the least onerous disposition.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its threat assessment and in ordering detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasoning was supported by evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of insight into her illness and the risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The court also found no error in the Board's decision to impose a more restrictive disposition given the changed circumstances, including the failure of a previous treatment regime.

The appellant, Raymond Mitchell, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his transfer from a medium-security facility to a high-security unit.

He argued the Board erred by not adequately considering Gladue principles and that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to transfer reasonable given the appellant's history of disruptive and violent behaviour and public safety risk.

However, the Court noted the Board's consideration of Gladue principles was inadequate, emphasizing the need for a "different method of analysis" for Indigenous individuals in psychiatric facilities, even if it doesn't mandate a different outcome.

Mavis Alexander appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that ordered her continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and restricted her privileges to escorted hospital and community access.

The ORB had removed prior conditions allowing for less supervised community access and placement on waitlists for community accommodation, citing her high risk of decompensation, disrobing, and exit-seeking behaviour.

Alexander argued the removal was unreasonable and contrary to Kelly (Re), emphasizing the long waitlists for supportive housing and the therapeutic benefit of such provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's decision.

The Court found the Board's assessment that the conditions lacked an "air of reality" was supported by the evidence, distinguishing the case from Kelly (Re) where community living was therapeutically motivated and not "so unrealistic."

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's reasons were inadequate and failed to consider evidence relating to his ADHD diagnosis, feelings of hopelessness, and history of childhood sexual abuse.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons were adequate when viewed in the context of the entire record.

The Court noted that the ADHD evidence was central to the hospital's position, which the Board accepted, and that the other evidence did not diminish the justification for the Board's order.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for arson, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue her conditional discharge with reduced requirements, seeking an absolute discharge.

The Board had determined she remained a "significant threat" to public safety due to partial insight into her illness, attempts to negotiate medication reductions, poor sleep hygiene, and a recent involuntary hospitalization with symptoms similar to her index offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion was reasonable and amply supported by the evidence, and that the Board properly considered all evidence, including factors favouring the appellant's absolute discharge, and reduced restrictions accordingly.

The appellant, under the supervision of the Ontario Review Board since 2009 for serious offences, appealed the Board's disposition maintaining his detention at Ontario Shores.

He argued the detention order was not the least onerous or restrictive, seeking a conditional discharge or a rehearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable, particularly its rejection of a conditional discharge due to the appellant's continued need for professional supervision and history of relapse.

The court affirmed that the Board is not required to address every piece of evidence in its reasons.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with privileges, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably determined that a detention order was necessary.

The court emphasized that the Board's decision was based on the brutal nature of the index offence and the need for close monitoring, distinguishing it from cases where expediency alone justified a restrictive disposition.