Nicholas A. Xynnis

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

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and an intellectual developmental disorder.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused has no reality-based understanding of the proceedings and poses a significant threat to public safety, the Board unanimously found the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment.

The Crown appealed a verdict finding the respondent not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for first-degree murder and other offences.

The respondent had killed his brother-in-law and assaulted his mother and sister while experiencing command delusions.

The Crown argued the trial judge misapplied the legal test for expert evidence and failed to properly assess the respondent's capacity to know his actions were morally wrong.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly weighed the expert evidence and correctly concluded the respondent's major mental illness rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm arising from a workplace dispute.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient and his credibility findings supported by security video evidence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The appeal judge found the trial judge erred in principle by failing to give adequate weight to the principle of restraint and the appellant's status as a 60-year-old first offender.

The 12-month custodial sentence was set aside and a conditional sentence of two years less a day was substituted.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment after engaging in escalating, sexualized online communications with an 11-year-old child.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation with a conviction, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court considered the accused's diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, his extensive and successful rehabilitation efforts over five years, and his low risk of reoffending.

Concluding that a discharge was in the accused's best interest and not contrary to the public interest, the court granted a conditional discharge.

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

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of medication non-compliance, substance use, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with existing conditions, including residence at a supportive housing facility.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for pushing a victim onto subway tracks, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for her annual hearing.

The hospital and the accused sought to remove a restriction preventing her from accessing subway platforms unaccompanied, which the Crown opposed.

The Board found that while she remains a significant threat to public safety, her condition has stabilized with medication and abstinence from substances.

The Board accepted the hospital's cautious, iterative approach to reintegration and removed the subway restriction, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellants challenged a criminal appeal judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal and delivered an oral ruling the same day.

The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority below.

The intervener participated, but the dispositive issue was resolved by adopting the appellate majority's reasoning.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson and assault of peace officers with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had shown clinical stability and improvement in a structured hospital setting.

However, the Board found that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, untreated psychosis, and the lack of established long-term medication adherence in the community.

The Board concluded that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a continuation of the existing detention order, with privileges up to and including living in approved, supervised community accommodations.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his s. 276 application to cross-examine the complainant about subsequent sexual activity between them.

He also argued the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to cross-examine a defence witness on his guilty plea related to the same incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the s. 276 ruling as the evidence had little probative value and the defence objective could be achieved without it.

The court also found no error in permitting cross-examination on the guilty plea, as it was relevant to credibility and its use was strictly limited.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and indecent act.

The Board accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, likely permanently, due to schizoaffective disorder and intellectual disability.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, particularly due to ongoing sexually inappropriate behaviour and the risk of decompensation if medication is not supervised.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order with discretionary privileges.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review.

The accused has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and stimulant use disorder, both in sustained remission.

The treatment team and all parties recommended an absolute discharge, noting the accused's years of stability, medication compliance, and successful community integration.

Applying the Winko threshold, the Board found the accused no longer poses a significant threat to public safety and ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempt murder and aggravated assault after pushing a person onto subway tracks.

The hospital and Crown supported a continued detention disposition, but disagreed on whether the accused should be permitted indirectly supervised access to the subway.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

While acknowledging her progress, the Board rejected the hospital psychiatrist's recommendation for subway access, finding it premature and restricting her transit use to buses and street cars.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed D.C.'s appeal from convictions for sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to declare a mistrial and in assessing the evidence.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s approach, including his assessment of the complainant’s credibility and the pattern of verdicts.

The court also rejected arguments regarding consent and the sufficiency of the evidence, upholding the convictions.

Nick Chrysostomou pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm after attacking a man with a hatchet during a road rage incident in Toronto.

The Court considered aggravating factors including the deliberate use of a weapon, the serious injury caused, and the public nature of the offence.

Mitigating factors included Chrysostomou’s lack of prior record, guilty plea, and rehabilitative potential.

The Court rejected a conditional discharge as contrary to public interest but imposed a 6-month Conditional Sentence Order with strict conditions, followed by 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation.

The appellants, David Case and Celine Loyer, appealed their convictions for sexual assault, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable due to the complainant's "flashback" memory being unreliable.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's memory and the confirmatory evidence to be reasonable and not fundamentally flawed.

The dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge's reasoning regarding the reliability of the "sleeping flashback" was circular and illogical, and that the confirmatory evidence was overstated.

Both sentence appeals regarding a no-contact condition were also dismissed.

The appellant, Michael Cady, appealed his convictions for possession of property obtained by crime and laundering proceeds of crime.

His wife had defrauded her employer of over $1 million, depositing funds into a joint account.

The trial judge found that the appellant either knew the funds were illegally obtained or was wilfully blind to their origin, citing several "red flags" including his wife's prior fraud conviction, bankruptcies, and the couple's lavish spending inconsistent with their declared income.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of wilful blindness, stating it was not inconsistent with the appellant's claim of deferring to his wife's financial management, especially given his admission of suspicion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Gary Willett, appealed his convictions for child abduction, assault, and theft over $5,000.

He brought a fresh evidence application, including the complainant's testimony from his wife's separate trial, which significantly differed from previous evidence.

The Crown conceded the fresh evidence should be admitted and the convictions quashed.

The Court of Appeal applied the Palmer criteria, finding the new evidence admissible as it undermined the complainant's credibility and the reliability of his original testimony, thereby affecting the safety of all verdicts.

Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered on all counts.

The appellant, Joseph Grant-Stuart, appealed his conviction for importing cocaine and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking, and sought leave to appeal his nine-year sentence.

The conviction appeal argued errors in the trial judge's response to a jury question on reasonable doubt and improper Crown closing submissions.

The sentence appeal argued the sentence was unfit due to insufficient weight given to mitigating factors like age and health.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's jury instructions or the Crown's submissions, and that the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range for drug importing cases.

The appellant appealed convictions for robbery, attempted robbery, using an imitation firearm, and uttering a threat, arguing the trial judge's jury charge was inadequate.

The appellant contended the charge failed to relate evidence to the issues and did not adequately address exculpatory evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge sufficient given the short, straightforward trial and the absence of objections from counsel during the pre-vetting process.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial on a 16-count indictment alleging sexual offences, internet luring, communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services from underage persons, and threats involving multiple teenage complainants, the court conducted a detailed credibility analysis and applied the principled hearsay exception to admit part of a non-testifying child complainant's statement.

The court found necessity and threshold reliability established for the written statement and the pre-writing portion of the videotaped interview, but excluded the later police-led questioning.

The court also admitted limited similar act evidence to assist with identification of the user of social media accounts and with proof of certain allegations.

The accused was convicted on counts 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16, with count 11 withdrawn and the remaining counts dismissed.