3 total
NCR accused found to remain a significant threat; detention continued and hospital transfer approved.
The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson and breach of probation.
The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, requested a transfer to Providence Care to be closer to family.
The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a history of non-compliance and risk of substance relapse.
The Board ordered a continued detention disposition and approved the transfer to Providence Care, with the current hospital retaining residual authority pending the transfer.
Accused found to remain a significant threat; conditional discharge continued on existing terms.
The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition.
The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and failure to comply with probation.
The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to chronic schizophrenia and substance use disorder.
The Board ordered a conditional discharge on the same terms as the previous disposition, noting the accused's progress and abstinence from substances.
The offender was sentenced to 3.5 years in custody for possessing child pornography, with the court rejecting that his brain injury reduced moral culpability.
Stephen John LeClair pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography.
The Crown sought a 4-year prison sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day or a 12-month jail sentence.
The court considered the large volume and vile nature of the child pornography, the severe victim impact, and the primary sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.
While acknowledging the offender's remorse, low risk of reoffending, and prior good character, the court found that an alleged acquired brain injury did not reduce moral culpability.
The court concluded that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offences and the need for a strong denunciatory and deterrent message.
A sentence of 3.5 years in custody was imposed.
