Mélanie Lord

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's detention disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, ADHD, and substance use disorder, had made significant progress in abstaining from substances and engaging with his treatment team.

However, due to ongoing challenges with medication compliance, impulsivity, and a need for structured support during his transition to more independent living, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention disposition with expanded privileges, concluding a conditional discharge was premature.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused had been living in the community under conditions and demonstrated sustained progress, stability, and compliance with psychiatric treatment for bipolar disorder.

Relying on uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused's risk of reoffending was extremely low, the Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Accordingly, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused had previously been found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The evidence demonstrated that the accused had remained stable, compliant with treatment, and possessed excellent insight into his mental health.

The Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including assault and mischief.

The accused had experienced a first episode of psychosis related to bipolar disorder and cannabis use.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention order was issued, with conditions permitting community living and travel passes for tree-planting employment in Quebec, provided the accused maintains stability and complies with treatment.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for murder due to a delusional disorder.

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused's cognitive function had declined and his paranoid delusions had expanded, causing him to feel unsafe at his long-term care residence.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order at the hospital with strict controls on his community access.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused who was previously found not criminally responsible for murder due to a severe mental disorder.

The Board received evidence that the accused's mental state had deteriorated, with a resurgence of paranoid delusions and a refusal to return to his previous long-term care residence.

Adopting a joint submission from the parties, the Board concluded that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety.

A detention order was issued, requiring the accused to remain in a 24-hour supervised hospital setting with strictly controlled community access.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault and mischief offences committed against her husband during a postpartum psychotic episode.

At the disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered psychiatric evidence indicating that the accused's symptoms were in full remission, she had excellent insight, and she was compliant with treatment.

Finding that the accused no longer presented a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault causing bodily harm and possession of a weapon.

He appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The accused has a long-standing diagnosis of schizophrenia and a severe substance use disorder.

Following his release on bail, he absconded from a treatment facility and continued to consume hard drugs.

The Board accepted the joint submission that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety.

A detention order was issued to ensure the accused receives necessary psychiatric and addictions treatment in a secure forensic hospital unit.

La Commission ontarienne d'examen a tenu une audience d'examen annuel pour l'accusé, qui avait été déclaré non responsable criminellement de voies de fait avec arme et d'autres infractions.

L'hôpital et le procureur général ont soutenu que l'accusé continuait de représenter une menace importante pour la sécurité publique et nécessitait une ordonnance de détention, tandis que l'accusé demandait une libération inconditionnelle ou conditionnelle.

La Commission a conclu que l'accusé posait toujours une menace importante en raison de sa maladie mentale grave, de ses antécédents de toxicomanie et de son besoin de supervision pour assurer la prise de ses médicaments.

La Commission a ordonné le maintien de l'ordonnance de détention, tout en accordant des privilèges élargis en reconnaissance des progrès récents de l'accusé.

The applicant, charged jointly with two co-accused for human trafficking offences, brought a pre-trial application for severance.

The applicant argued that being tried alongside one of the co-accused, who was also her alleged victimizer in related charges, would cause her further victimization and prevent her from testifying in her own defence.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to establish that a joint trial would work an injustice, while noting that testimonial aids could potentially be utilized to facilitate her evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board declaring him unfit to stand trial and ordering his detention at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The appellant did not contest his unfitness or the finding that he posed a significant risk to the community due to serious mental illness, but argued he should be transferred to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre instead.

The Court of Appeal found the Review Board erred by failing to investigate when the complainant would be discharged from the Royal Ottawa Centre, which was the primary basis for the transfer order.

The court also identified unresolved questions regarding the appellant's linguistic rights under the Criminal Code and the French Language Services Act.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Review Board for a new hearing.

À la suite de condamnations pour introduction par effraction, agression sexuelle causant des lésions corporelles, voies de fait et menaces de mort, la Couronne a demandé que le délinquant soit déclaré délinquant dangereux en vertu de l’art. 753 du Code criminel.

La preuve démontrait un long historique criminel comprenant plusieurs agressions sexuelles, violences conjugales et manquements à des ordonnances judiciaires, ainsi qu’un refus constant d’assumer la responsabilité de ses actes ou de participer à des traitements.

La Cour a conclu que les critères des al. 753(1)(a) et (b) étaient satisfaits, notamment la répétition d’actes violents et l’incapacité de contrôler ses impulsions sexuelles.

Elle a également déterminé qu’il n’existait aucune possibilité réelle de contrôler le risque dans la communauté au moyen d’une ordonnance de surveillance de longue durée.

Une peine indéterminée a donc été imposée afin d’assurer la protection du public.