Natalie C. MacDonald

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and failing to comply with probation.

The accused had been living in the community with minimal supports, maintaining employment, and remaining abstinent from substances while compliant with his schizophrenia medication.

The treatment team, supported by a joint submission from all parties, recommended an absolute discharge.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board found 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 annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for firearms and mischief offences.

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, had remained clinically stable, abstained from substances, and engaged in therapeutic programming over the past year.

However, relying on the hospital psychiatrist's evidence and a joint submission from counsel, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his vulnerability to stressors and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with expanded community pass privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review and a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for firearms and assault offences.

The hospital had transferred the accused to a secure forensic unit due to substance use, rule violations, and medication non-compliance.

The Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted and necessary to manage the accused's risk.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to predictable medication non-adherence, heavy cannabis use, and rapid psychotic relapse.

The Board ordered the accused's continued detention at the hospital, with provisions for an updated Gladue Report and potential attendance at an Indigenous residential treatment centre.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with probation.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the attending psychiatrist and the joint submission of the parties, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness, intellectual deficit, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to a high risk of medication non-adherence and substance use relapse without the structure of a detention order.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The accused had been living in the community, maintaining employment, and complying with treatment without signs of decompensation.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to partial insight and risk of relapse.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with terms including reporting and residence requirements.

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

The accused was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1991 for assault with a weapon.

The treatment team provided uncontroverted evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to treatment-resistant schizophrenia and psychogenic polydipsia, requiring close supervision to prevent water intoxication and cannabis use.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to pierce the corporate veil and hold the individual defendant personally liable for the corporate defendant's failure to pay commissions and other compensation.

The corporate defendant was in receivership.

The individual defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were statute-barred and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action by sufficiently linking the individual defendant's alleged value-stripping to the unpaid commissions.

The court also held that the discoverability of the claim raised issues of fact and credibility that must be determined at trial or on summary judgment.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, had recently been transferred to a more secure unit following substance use and aggressive behaviour.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely decompensate and re-engage in criminal conduct if discharged.

The Board ordered that the current detention disposition be renewed and upheld the ongoing restriction of liberties to allow for further monitoring.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave under Rule 31.10 to examine a non-party, the defendant's former head of Human Resources.

The plaintiff alleged he was dismissed after complaining about harassment by his manager, and sought to question the non-party about similar complaints made by other employees.

The non-party was willing to testify but was bound by a non-disclosure agreement that the defendant refused to waive.

The court granted the motion, finding that the non-party had relevant information that the plaintiff could not obtain from the defendant, and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiff to proceed to trial without this discovery.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for various weapons offences, was conditionally discharged but subsequently readmitted to the hospital on two occasions due to substance use and psychiatric decompensation.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the resulting restrictions of liberty.

Accepting the joint submission of the parties and the unchallenged medical evidence, the Board found that both readmissions were necessary and appropriate to manage the accused's risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, had been residing in a supported group home and complying with treatment.

The hospital requested a transfer of his care to a facility closer to his family.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence and risk of non-compliance with medication.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with expanded travel privileges and approved the transfer of care to facilitate his transition to a new residence.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for two counts of attempted murder and one count of assault after stabbing his mother and sister.

At his annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether he remained a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's limited insight into his schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, combined with his stated intention to stop medication if released, meant he remained a significant threat.

The Board ordered the continuation of his Detention Order at the hospital as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on a charge of aggravated assault after stabbing his father.

At the initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital, Crown, and accused jointly recommended a detention order.

The Board accepted the clinical evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but is responding well to treatment.

The Board ordered the accused detained in a General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores with specified privileges.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder, had recently decompensated due to medication nonadherence and exhibited aggressive behaviour towards hospital staff.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and would likely deteriorate further without supervision.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on two counts of second-degree murder and one count of aggravated assault.

At his initial Disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the Board found that he remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, limited insight into his substance use disorders, and a history of severe violence.

The Board ordered his detention at a secure forensic hospital.

While the hospital recommended indirectly supervised community passes, the Board restricted his privileges to accompanied passes only, finding that indirectly supervised passes were premature given his recent admission and need for further stabilization and assessment.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing after the hospital transferred the accused from a general forensic unit to a secure forensic unit following an elopement where he stole a car and drove erratically.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive option given the accused's impulsivity, substance use, and need for medication stabilization.

The Board also amended the disposition to remove the word 'General' from the location of detention, allowing the hospital discretion over the appropriate level of security.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing two family members while experiencing persecutory delusions.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered expert psychiatric evidence indicating the accused's ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, impulsivity, and sexually disinhibited behaviour.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

A Detention Order at the hospital was issued, as community living was deemed premature while his medication regimen is being optimized.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and other mental health conditions.

Based on the hospital report and expert testimony, the Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to a risk of medication non-adherence, impulsivity, and a history of arson.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the same terms and conditions.

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

The accused had made significant progress over the past five years, remaining stable, medication-compliant, and substance-free while living in the community.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence and mental illness.

However, considering his progress, the Board ordered a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.