Michele M. Warner

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible, brought an application for a writ of habeas corpus with mandamus in aid to review his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and order his immediate transfer to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The Ontario Review Board had ordered his transfer to CAMH 'forthwith', but he had been waiting seven months due to a shortage of secure forensic beds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not established a deprivation of liberty caused specifically by the delay, and that the ORB order provided lawful authority for his continued interim detention at Waypoint until a bed became available at CAMH.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and attempt to choke, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering a conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he remained a significant risk to public safety was unreasonable and overly focused on potential medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating the appellant would likely discontinue treatment if absolutely discharged, which would increase his risk of violent behaviour.

In a criminal bribery prosecution, the appellant international financial organization challenged a third party production order and subpoenas issued in support of a Garofoli wiretap challenge.

The Court held that archival and personnel immunities under the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act applied to records and investigators of the organization’s integrity unit, and no waiver was established.

The Court further held that, in the Garofoli context, third party production requires a reasonable likelihood of probative value to the affiant-knowledge issues, not broad relevance to trial truth.

Because that threshold was not met, the production order was set aside.

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

The parties had made a joint submission requesting a transfer to a secure unit and an early six-month review hearing.

The Board accepted the transfer but rejected the early review.

The appellant argued this breached procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not impose a more restrictive disposition than requested, the parties had a full opportunity to argue the merits of the early review, and the Board's decision was reasonable based on the evidence of the appellant's recent behaviour.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible confinement and assault due to a delusional disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention on the Secure Forensic Unit at CAMH.

He sought a transfer to the less secure General Forensic Unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable because the appellant's refusal to engage with his treatment team prevented the hospital from assessing his risk, and the higher staff-to-patient ratio on the secure unit actually allowed him more escorted passes.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At his annual review hearing, all parties presented a joint submission to continue his previous disposition, which included unaccompanied privileges.

The Board rejected the joint submission and imposed a more restrictive disposition without giving the parties notice of its intention to do so.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to give the appellant notice that it was inclined to reject the joint submission and an opportunity to lead further evidence or make additional submissions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's reliance on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant posed a significant risk of violence to hospital staff if he remained in a medium secure facility without a medication change.

The court found it was reasonable for the Board to rely on evidence regarding enhanced security and potential privileges at Waypoint.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death and assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at CAMH with a condition allowing him to live in approved community accommodation.

The appellant argued the Board erred by not ordering a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered the relevant criteria, including the appellant's liberty interest, and reasonably concluded that a detention order was necessary to ensure CAMH could approve his housing as the safest first step for reintegration.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board refusing an absolute discharge and continuing a conditional discharge.

The Board concluded the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a high likelihood of non-compliance with anti-psychotic medication if discharged absolutely.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the expert opinion of a consulting forensic psychiatrist regarding the appellant's fluctuating insight into his condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible confinement and assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in the Secure Forensic Unit of CAMH.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its placement decision, failed to consider a less restrictive unit, and unfairly limited cross-examination of his treating psychiatrist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's lack of insight, refusal of treatment, and the significant threat he posed to the public.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 23, 2013.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because a subsequent disposition was issued on February 18, 2014, and the appellant was successfully living in the community in approved housing.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant chose not to attend the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, relying on an alibi.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable despite the alibi evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute discharge or, alternatively, permission to live in the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The court rejected the argument that there was a treatment impasse, noting that the diagnosis had been clarified and the treatment team was trying different approaches.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order for the production of documents related to the applicant's communications with the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care regarding out-of-province funding for rehabilitative services.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the documents were not relevant and not in his possession.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to the issues of whether the respondent offered the requested services and the compensation sought.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to conduct a diligent search and produce any requested documents in his possession.

The applicant facility sought an extension of a young person's commitment to a secure treatment program due to ongoing self-harming behaviour and suicidal ideation.

The young person opposed the extension, arguing she had made significant progress and could be treated in a less restrictive community setting.

The court found that recent incidents of self-harm constituted attempts to cause serious bodily harm and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate given the intense supervision required.

The application for a 180-day extension was granted.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his personal items, including clothing and money, were lost while he was a patient in the respondent's Crisis Unit.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was dissatisfied with the loss and the respondent's policies, there was no evidence linking the loss of his items to his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention with community privileges.

The respondents sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent events, which the Court of Appeal declined to admit to avoid delaying the hearing until the next annual review.

On the merits, the Court found the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court action against a hospital.

The appellants had sued the hospital for failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of their family member, claiming emotional harm.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding the action was an abuse of process because the claims could have been raised in a prior, time-barred Superior Court action.

The Court also held the action was statute-barred, rejecting the argument that the hospital's ongoing failure to provide information constituted a continuing contravention that extended the limitation period.

The appellant appealed from a judgment dismissing his action against the respondents on summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to adduce evidence capable of raising a genuine issue for trial.

The Court also agreed that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.