Michele M. Warner

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge with terms requiring attendance and voluntary readmission.

The Board found that continued detention was necessary as the least onerous and restrictive disposition given the appellant's significant threat to public safety, chronic drug-induced psychosis, severe addiction, and need for supervised community reintegration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was supported by expert evidence regarding the necessity of hospital-approved housing and the inadequacy of Mental Health Act provisions for rapid intervention.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition order dated December 13, 2024.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge or, alternatively, authorization for 14-day travel passes to the United States.

The Board maintained a detention order requiring continued residence at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community housing privileges and extended Canadian travel passes to 14 days.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in law and that the disposition was reasonable and not a miscarriage of justice.

This decision concerns an appeal by Iesha Mitchell from a detention order imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had found that, although Mitchell could live in the community with certain privileges, her housing required approval by the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), and that the Mental Health Act alone would not be sufficient to manage her risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board’s reasoning, holding that the evidence supported the need for approved housing and a detention order, given the subtlety of Mitchell’s decompensation and the need for prompt intervention.

The appeal was dismissed.

Mark Sheldon Roberts appealed a 2020 Ontario Review Board disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the 2020 disposition had been superseded by a 2021 disposition, and new criminal charges and re-admission to a secure forensic unit at CAMH had rendered the factual record stale.

The court reiterated the principle of not deciding moot cases, especially in Review Board matters where no effective remedy can be given for a spent disposition.

James Faichney, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for an assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the ORB erred by failing to consider a Gladue report and principles, and that its finding of a "significant threat" to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB implicitly considered Gladue factors relevant to the threat assessment by addressing the availability of culturally appropriate care, and that the "significant threat" finding was reasonable given evidence of medication non-compliance and unrealistic expectations for independent care.

This decision addresses two appeals by an accused found not criminally responsible (NCRMD) from disposition orders of the Ontario Review Board (ORB).

The first appeal (C68888) challenged a 2020 detention order with community living privileges, which was ultimately adjourned as moot due to a subsequent disposition.

The second appeal (C69217) arose from a 2021 ORB hearing following the revocation of the accused's community living privileges and his re-detention due to new harassment incidents.

A central issue in the second appeal was the ORB's new practice of issuing general detention orders to a "Forensic Service" without specifying the security level of the unit.

The Court of Appeal expressed concern that this practice might hinder the ORB's ability to ensure the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, emphasizing the need for specificity regarding conditions and security levels.

The Court admitted fresh evidence regarding the accused's transfer to a secure unit and the withdrawal of criminal charges.

The Court maintained the 2021 disposition and dismissed the second appeal.

Bartosz Gajewski was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for assault and forcible confinement and was subject to the Ontario Review Board (ORB) jurisdiction.

The ORB conditionally discharged him.

The Crown appealed this disposition, seeking to add a geographic boundary condition or to remit the matter for a re-hearing, arguing the ORB erred in law and was unreasonable in not imposing the boundary condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB correctly applied the law by balancing public safety with the accused's liberty interests and that its decision not to impose the boundary condition was reasonable, as existing conditions adequately protected the victim.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to consider his significant progress in hospital, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital's prior non-compliance with a restriction of liberty (ROL) order, and an alleged outdated understanding of the Mental Health Act's committal provisions by the treating psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered the appellant's progress and the pandemic's effects, appropriately reprimanded the hospital for its past non-compliance, and was entitled to rely on the psychiatrist's evidence given the record.

The court emphasized the Board's paramount consideration of public safety and the need for a complete record on Mental Health Act committal provisions in future disputes.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition requiring his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the ORB's decision as reasonable.

The court found that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his mental health diagnoses, substance abuse, history of non-compliance with community privileges, and the violent nature of his index offences.

The court also rejected the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a conditional discharge, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration and that a detention order provides essential early intervention capabilities beyond those available under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for prior offences, appealed a 2019 Ontario Review Board disposition that continued his conditional discharge and imposed new alcohol and drug testing requirements.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its application of the significant threat test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's determination that the appellant posed a significant threat was not supported by the evidence and lacked proper analysis regarding the degree of risk or gravity of apprehended harm.

The court emphasized that factors such as lack of insight, potential medication non-compliance, or substance abuse do not automatically establish a significant threat without specific analysis of the risk of serious criminal conduct.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted, although the issue was rendered moot by a subsequent 2020 Board decision granting an absolute discharge.

Ara Koundakjian appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, having sought a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued the Board misstated the governing legal test by using "appropriate" instead of "necessary and appropriate" and failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board understood the correct standard despite the shorthand, and that its determination of continued detention was reasonable and entitled to deference given the appellant's history of mental illness, substance abuse (cocaine), lack of insight, frequent breaches of disposition conditions, and the significant risk of serious harm to the public.

Sharon Atkinson, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for arson, appealed the Ontario Review Board's conditional discharge, seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

The appellant, diagnosed with Prader-Willi syndrome, intellectual disability, and personality disorder, argued the Board erred in finding her a significant threat to public safety and in assessing the sufficiency of civil mechanisms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant remained a significant threat due to her persistent behavioural issues, high risk of recidivism, and lack of a viable plan for an absolute discharge, concluding that civil mechanisms would be inadequate to manage the risk.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) in 2002, appealed a conditional discharge order issued by the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's finding of a "significant threat to the safety of the public" was unreasonable and that the Board misapprehended the sufficiency of available civil mechanisms to manage his risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on "significant threat" to be within the range of reasonable outcomes, considering factors such as the appellant's major mental illness, serious index offences, lack of insight, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

The second ground of appeal regarding civil mechanisms was not pressed.

An appeal against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board was dismissed as moot.

The parties agreed that a later board disposition rendered the appeal academic, leading the court to dismiss the matter without addressing the merits of the original appeal.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition, which was a hybrid detention order with potential for community living.

The appellant had a history of non-compliance with previous conditional discharge orders, leading to hospitalization and absconding.

The appellant argued for a less restrictive disposition, but the Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding its reasons comprehensive and reasonable given the appellant's continued significant threat to public safety and history of absconding.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 6, 2019.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, appealed a conditional discharge disposition that prohibited him from driving and required abstinence from alcohol.

The appellant argued the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly given his suspended driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable and supported by evidence, but expressed concern about the lack of information available regarding the licence suspension and directed that detailed information be obtained for the next review.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering detention of a not criminally responsible accused at a forensic psychiatric facility.

The appellant sought conditional discharge with residence at his mother's home.

The Court of Appeal found the Board failed in its inquisitorial duty by not adequately exploring whether safeguards could mitigate concerns about attending physicians' understanding of the appellant's specific delusional disorder, and by relying on an unexplained administrative decision denying residence with his mother without requiring justification.

The appeal was allowed and the matter returned to the Board for re-hearing on an expedited basis.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated February 4, 2019, ordering continued detention in the General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, an independent assessment of his treatment plan and risk with an early hearing date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's determination that the appellant continues to meet the threshold for significant threat was amply justified.

However, the court expressed concern that no concrete plan for community reintegration had been established as previously directed.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition regarding a detention order for the appellant.

The appellant challenged two aspects of the Board's decision: (1) whether the Board erred in making a detention order rather than granting some form of discharge, and (2) whether the Board erred in not including a term allowing the appellant to live in community accommodation approved by the hospital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order but found the Board had misapprehended the hospital's evidence regarding a community living provision and failed to consider that evidence.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of inserting a clause permitting community living in hospital-approved accommodation into the detention order.