Nicolas de Montigny

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition requiring his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the ORB's decision as reasonable.

The court found that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his mental health diagnoses, substance abuse, history of non-compliance with community privileges, and the violent nature of his index offences.

The court also rejected the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a conditional discharge, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration and that a detention order provides essential early intervention capabilities beyond those available under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant, Jeremey Ceasor, appealed a sentencing judge's decision regarding pre-sentence custody credit.

After pleading guilty to weapons offences, he was released on bail.

He was later charged with breaching his release order and pleaded guilty, with parties proposing time served (33 days).

However, his guilty plea to the breach charge was subsequently struck.

The defence sought to apply the 33 days of pre-sentence custody to the earlier weapons charges, but the sentencing judge denied this.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that section 719(3) of the Criminal Code does not permit "banking" custodial time for unrelated offences, and credit must relate to the specific offence under consideration.

The appellant, Zi-Yue Huang, appealed a 12-month sentence for three counts of robbery, arguing the sentencing judge erred by not crediting pre-sentence custody and by treating his mental health as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in failing to credit pre-sentence custody without providing reasons, which impacted the sentence.

However, the court found no error in how the sentencing judge considered the appellant's mental health.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was adjusted to reflect credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant, a dangerous offender, appealed an indeterminate sentence imposed for breaching his long-term supervision order (LTSO).

The breach involved pursuing a young woman without reporting contact, a behaviour similar to his past criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the principles of proportionality and mitigating factors, and reasonably concluded that an indeterminate sentence was necessary for public protection given the appellant's high risk of recidivism and history of non-compliance with treatment.

The court did, however, set aside a victim surcharge in accordance with R. v. Boudreault.

The appellant, J.J., appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly used transcripts of the complainant's police statement and preliminary inquiry evidence for credibility assessments.

The transcripts were provided to the trial judge solely to assist in recalling portions put to the complainant during viva voce evidence.

However, the trial judge considered the entirety of the transcripts, including passages not introduced in evidence, to find the complainant's "three interrogations" internally consistent, thereby preferring her evidence and rejecting the accused's.

The Court of Appeal found this improper use rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 24, 2019, concerning a detention order for the appellant.

The appellant sought to include a term allowing community living at the Hospital's discretion, arguing it was a viable prospect within the year and would allow placement on a waiting list for community living.

The Board rejected these arguments after full consideration of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, noting that the Board had expanded the order to permit community access under indirect supervision, which the appellant was utilizing.

An appeal by an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused against the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his conditional discharge.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The appellant had been living unsupervised in the community for over a decade with stable mental health and medication compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on the appellant's lack of insight into his illness, his history of violence when unmedicated, and concerns that the civil mental health system could not adequately manage the risk of treatment non-compliance.