Michele M. Warner

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.

The victim of an assault sought leave to intervene in a Crown appeal of a disposition by the Ontario Review Board regarding the accused, who had been found not criminally responsible.

The victim sought to argue for a geographic boundary restriction, an issue the Crown had raised unsuccessfully at the board but did not appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that permitting the victim to intervene would unfairly prejudice the accused by raising an issue not raised by the parties.

The court noted that the victim's concerns had been articulated by the Crown, whose responsibility it is to speak for the community regarding public safety.

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.

An appeal by an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused against the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The appellant had been living unsupervised in the community for over a decade with stable mental health and medication compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on the appellant's lack of insight into his illness, his history of violence when unmedicated, and concerns that the civil mental health system could not adequately manage the risk of treatment non-compliance.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 26, 2018, continuing a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's schizoaffective disorder, substance abuse disorder, history of violence, lack of insight into her mental illness, medication compliance issues, and actuarial risk assessment placing her at moderate-high risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition fell within the range of reasonable outcomes supported by evidence.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on impaired driving and assault charges and was diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder and Substance Use Disorders.

The Board issued conflicting reasons: initially a detention order, then reasons supporting a conditional discharge, and finally amended reasons supporting detention.

The Court of Appeal found the conflicting and unexplained reasons rendered the disposition untenable and allowed the appeal, ordering a new hearing before a differently constituted panel within three weeks.

An appeal from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board concerning a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Board's May 23, 2017 conditional discharge order and its August 11, 2017 detention order, arguing both were unreasonable and that the August 11 order resulted from procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the May 23 order as moot and upheld the August 11 detention order, finding it was reasonable based on the appellant's relapse into drug use, violent behavior, and non-compliance with medication and reporting requirements.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge after nearly ten years of detention at a psychiatric hospital, while the hospital sought increased security.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant risk to public safety based on her history of assaultive behavior, substance abuse, and recent violent incidents.

However, the court found the Board erred by failing to make mandatory its recommendation for independent professional review and a customized treatment plan aimed at eventual community reintegration, given the appellant's prolonged detention without progress and the risk that continued hospitalization may be counter-therapeutic.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's disposition denying an absolute discharge to the appellant under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the Board erred in concluding she posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable and supported by evidence including signs of decompensation in the community, lack of insight into her illness and the seriousness of the offences, refusal of recommended medication, and a paranoid belief system.

The Court also found the Board properly applied the least onerous and least restrictive standard in its restriction of liberty review.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning an NCR accused person's Charter rights.

The appellant sought systemic remedies from the Board for violations of his section 8 Charter right arising from unauthorized seizure of urine samples.

The Board found the Charter violation but declined to grant systemic remedies, determining it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, holding that while the Board has jurisdiction to determine Charter issues and grant individual remedies, it does not have jurisdiction to impose broad systemic or institutional orders.

The Board's mandate is limited to supervising individual NCR accused persons and ensuring their conditions are least onerous and restrictive consistent with public safety.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 6, 2017, challenging the Board's addition of a "24-hour-a-day" supervision requirement to a community accommodation condition.

The appellant contended this requirement was not part of the joint submission made at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, determining that the hearing transcript clearly showed counsel for the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health had proposed a housing clause specifically including 24-hour staff supervision, which the appellant's counsel had supported.

The Board's disposition therefore accepted the parties' joint submission rather than departing from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

An appeal from a December 14, 2016 Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the detention of a not criminally responsible accused at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant, diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance-use disorder, had committed index offences in 2004 involving robbery and theft.

The Board found the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety due to continued substance abuse and manic symptoms.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence of post-decision disruptive conduct and upheld the detention order, finding the Board reasonably applied the "significant threat" standard and selected the least restrictive disposition appropriate in the circumstances.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dated January 27, 2017, which authorized the interim administration of clozapine under the Health Care Consent Act, pending an appeal from a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board.

The applicant also sought a stay of the interim treatment order if leave was granted.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the applicant failed to meet the two-part test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Specifically, there was no conflicting decision on a matter of principle, nor was there sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the original order.

The court also noted that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant leave, particularly given the applicant's strategic decision not to accelerate the main appeal involving constitutional issues.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for setting a bus on fire, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition imposing a detention order with community living.

He argued that a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia and substance use disorder, and that a detention order was necessary to manage his risk.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with permission to live in the community restricted to supervised accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to consider a conditional discharge and by requiring supervised accommodation.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence showing the appellant was not yet ready for a conditional discharge, as recent attempts at community living had failed.

The Court also found the Board's requirement for supervised accommodation was reasonable and supported by expert opinion.

The appeal was dismissed.