Michelle Lynn Levasseur

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberties imposed on the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial and detained at a mental health facility.

The hospital had secluded the accused on two occasions due to his deteriorating mental state, agitation, and risk of harm to others.

The Board found that both periods of seclusion were warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive means to manage the accused's risk.

However, the Board directed the attending psychiatrist to canvass the risks and benefits of injectable medications with the accused's substitute decision-maker to address suboptimal treatment caused by the diversion of oral medications.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences.

All parties agreed the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

Based on evidence that the accused's condition had markedly improved on clozapine with no recent incidents of aggression, the Board ordered his transfer from a high-secure facility to the medium-secure Brockville Mental Health Centre, with accompanied grounds privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of criminal harassment and failing to comply with probation.

Based on the hospital report and psychiatric testimony, the Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to persistent delusional beliefs and a lack of understanding of the judicial system.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with privileges to live in the community, but decreased the reporting condition as recommended by the hospital, finding that a conditional discharge was not appropriate at this time.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with a probation order.

The Board accepted the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder and an acquired brain injury, continues to experience persecutory delusions and has engaged in aggressive behaviour requiring seclusion.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered no change to his current disposition, maintaining his detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and assault.

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and progressing dementia, lacking insight into his need for medication.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused would decompensate and pose an increased risk if he discontinued medication.

The Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered his conditional discharge disposition to continue, with an amendment to update his residence.

The accused, Justice Snache, was charged with second-degree murder.

The trial proceeded in two stages: first, to determine guilt based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, and second, to determine criminal responsibility due to mental disorder.

The court found that the Crown proved the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the actus reus and mens rea, based on the agreed facts and the accused's admission.

However, the court then considered the Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) defence under Section 16 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, particularly from Dr. Naidoo, the court found that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral and legal wrongfulness of his actions.

Consequently, the accused was found not criminally responsible for the murder and remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought several pre-trial applications seeking to exclude his confession to police, set aside search warrants, and exclude GPS cell phone data.

The court found that while the police breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights by conducting a non-compliant strip search, the breach did not warrant a stay of proceedings or the exclusion of his voluntary confession under s. 24(2).

The court also dismissed the Garofoli application, finding no material omissions in the search warrant informations.

Finally, the court ruled that GPS location data from the accused's phone was admissible without expert testimony, taking judicial notice of the reliability of GPS technology.

Carl Obermeier was convicted of sexual assault and assault, and found guilty of breaching probation.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation, which was granted.

The court then proceeded to sentence Obermeier, with both Crown and defence agreeing he met dangerous offender criteria and should receive a fixed sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, but disagreeing on the length of the custodial portion.

The court reviewed Obermeier's extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assaults, manslaughter, and assaults on peace officers, noting his antisocial personality disorder and lack of insight.

The court imposed a fixed sentence of 58 months (26 months remnant after pre-sentence credit) for sexual assault, concurrent sentences for assault and breach of probation, and a 10-year long-term supervision order, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA, and non-communication orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 involving more than 30 victims and losses totalling approximately $285,234 over a four‑year period.

Many victims were seniors who paid for doors, windows, renovation work, or loans that were never delivered or repaid.

The court emphasized that large‑scale fraud is a serious offence where general and specific deterrence and denunciation are paramount.

Aggravating factors included the duration of the scheme, the number and vulnerability of victims, the calculated conduct, and the absence of restitution.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of two years and issued a stand‑alone restitution order but declined to impose probation or a DNA order.

On a blended voir dire in a sexual offence prosecution, the accused sought exclusion of two utterances made at arrest and during transport, and a videotaped police interview, on voluntariness and Charter grounds.

The court applied the confessions rule and held the utterances were spontaneous and voluntary, and the interview statement was also voluntary despite deceptive police comments about consent, which did not rise to community-shocking trickery.

The court found no breach of ss. 10(a), 10(b), or 7 of the Charter, including because the accused was informed of the charges and consulted duty counsel before the interview.

References in the interview to separate child abuse allegations and a Children’s Aid Society investigation were ordered excised as irrelevant.

The accused brought an application under ss. 276.1 and 276.2 of the Criminal Code seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant about prior sexual assault allegations involving other individuals.

The accused argued the evidence was relevant to demonstrate a pattern of false allegations or a motive to fabricate and was not intended to rely on the prohibited “twin myths.” The court held that the accused failed to provide detailed particulars of the proposed evidence or establish its relevance to an issue at trial.

There was no evidentiary foundation showing the prior allegations were false or recanted, and the proposed evidence would amount to impermissible collateral attacks on credibility.

The court further found that any minimal probative value was substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice to the complainant and the administration of justice under s. 276(3).

The application was dismissed.