Michael Baltzan Schloss

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and robbery.

The Board found that the accused, who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and substance use disorders, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with a reduction in reporting requirements to not less than once every two weeks, in accordance with a joint submission.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge disposition.

The accused had been found not criminally responsible for murder due to schizophrenia.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and requires ongoing clinical supervision to prevent deterioration.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with minor amendments to the conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences including robbery and dangerous driving.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, continued to experience psychotic symptoms and violent thoughts, and remained resistant to medication.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital's psychiatrist that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention order at the high secure forensic program, with a recommendation for transfer to the Institute of Philippe-Pinel in Quebec.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault, was subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition allowing her to live in the community.

The hospital readmitted her after she consistently tested positive for illicit substances and breached her disposition conditions.

The Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of liberties under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of the accused's liberty was warranted and represented the least restrictive and least onerous intervention necessary to manage her risk and address her substance use.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The accused sought a conditional discharge to reside with his parents, while the hospital and Crown sought a continuation of the detention order.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, substance use risk, lack of insight, and recent aggressive behaviour in the hospital.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, finding that a conditional discharge would not adequately manage the risk to the public.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for manslaughter, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory review hearing.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to a diagnosis of schizophrenia, a history of non-adherence to medication, and a fragile mental state.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, concluding that a conditional discharge would not provide the necessary monitoring to manage the accused's risk in the community.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty review for an accused found not criminally responsible for threatening to burn property, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and assault.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of substance use, was readmitted to the hospital after a breach of his disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order but amended the conditions to permit the use of cannabis obtained from licensed dispensaries, accepting the treatment team's opinion that this would allow for safe monitoring of his mental state.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for several offences including carrying a concealed weapon and criminal harassment.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the detention order with the addition of 7-day passes.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, substance abuse, and escalating sexually inappropriate behaviour towards female staff.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the recommended modifications.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had shown clinical stability and improved insight following a medication change.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the detention order, but expanded his community pass privileges to Southern Ontario as recommended by the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for various offences including assault with a weapon.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought to continue the detention order with an expanded 150-kilometre radius for community living, while the accused requested an amendment to permit cannabis use.

The Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, granted the expanded community living radius on consent, and denied the request to permit cannabis use, noting it played a significant role in the index offences.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for arson and assault with a weapon, requested an early Ontario Review Board hearing to seek a transfer from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre back to Ontario Shores.

The Board reviewed his history of unprovoked physical aggression, the previous treatment impasse at Ontario Shores, and his recent impulsive behaviour related to food restrictions at the Royal Ottawa.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and concluded that a transfer back to Ontario Shores was not necessary or appropriate at this early juncture.

The existing Detention Order at the Royal Ottawa was maintained.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The hospital and the accused jointly recommended a Conditional Discharge, while the Attorney General recommended continuing the Detention Order.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, citing an unexplained incident where the accused received over 800 excess Ativan pills and ongoing financial stressors.

The Board rejected the joint recommendation for a Conditional Discharge and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and other offences.

The accused has schizoaffective disorder and continues to experience auditory command hallucinations.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his chronic, treatment-resistant mental illness and poor insight.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores, with privileges up to living in the community in supervised accommodation, as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage his risk.

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.