Michele M. Warner

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) and detained at CAMH, appealed a Review Board disposition continuing his detention despite being designated as alternate level of care.

The appellant proposed a conditional discharge with a Young clause and treatment compliance conditions, or alternatively, living with family due to a lack of community housing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board failed to properly consider the proposed safeguards, did not adequately inquire into family accommodation, and based its risk assessment on speculative concerns and unsupported assumptions.

The Court also overturned its previous decision in Negash regarding the enforceability of hospital readmission under section 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

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.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order at a psychiatric facility.

The appellant argued that the Board's decision to deny him a conditional discharge was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the Board's decision was well-supported by evidence of the appellant's decompensation, untreated mental illness, and history of absconding from his treatment team.

Accordingly, the Court found no error in the Board's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

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.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for arson in 2007, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a mental health facility.

He argued the Board erred by failing to consider all relevant factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and that a conditional discharge was the least onerous disposition necessary.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the appellant's risk of violent confrontations and inability to manage the stresses of community living required the supervision of a detention order.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board maintaining his conditional discharge.

He argued that the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant risk to the public was unreasonable and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric testimony indicating that the appellant's impending transition to a less structured living environment would increase his risk to public safety.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for killing his sister, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued the Board failed to order the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not directing the hospital to grant him indirectly supervised passes without requiring his participation in structured programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the hospital needed the appellant to engage in structured programming to assess his risk to the community, and that no treatment impasse existed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for several assaults, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge was appropriate and that his risk could be managed in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded a detention order was necessary due to the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, his substance use, and the need for proactive intervention to prevent decompensation.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for breach of probation, appealed a Review Board decision continuing his conditional discharge and denying an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence that the appellant lacked insight, was likely to discontinue medication, and would experience worsening persecutory delusions leading to a risk of criminal behaviour.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for uttering a death threat, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a secure forensic unit.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly assess the likelihood and seriousness of potential future harm under the Winko test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably relied on expert evidence detailing the appellant's recent clinical deterioration, substance abuse, and threatening behaviour to conclude he remained a significant threat to public safety.

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.