Natalya Odorico

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, mischief, threatening death, and assault with a weapon, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering her continued detention in a forensic psychiatric facility.

The appellant challenged the Board's application of the significant risk test and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the legal test applied or its application to the evidence.

The Board properly considered the appellant's history of medication non-compliance, continued cannabis use in breach of conditions, and recent aggressive incidents with co-patients as active risk factors supporting a finding of significant risk to public safety.

The appellant was convicted after trial of firearm and other offences and received a total sentence of 70 months (84 months with 14 months credit for pretrial custody).

The appellant appealed the sentence on grounds including the restraint principle, arguing that a lengthy penitentiary term was unnecessary given his lack of prior incarceration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence as fit, finding that for serious domestic violence offences involving a lethal weapon, deterrence, denunciation, and victim protection must take precedence over the restraint principle.

The court corrected three technical sentencing errors but found no net effect on the total sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision ordering his continued detention at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible for reasons of mental disorder in 2008 and 2011.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on three grounds: (1) the Board improperly used the appellant's request for discharge as evidence of lack of insight; (2) the Board's analysis on whether the appellant would pose a significant risk to public safety was insufficient and conflated risk of mental health relapse with risk to public safety; and (3) the Board improperly included a finding that the appellant had sexually assaulted a minor when he had been acquitted of that charge.

The appellant was entitled to a new hearing before the Board.