Health Law - ONCJ

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement following an incident in November 2021 where he sexually assaulted his roommate despite her prior and explicit rejection of his advances.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and applied for a verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded that the defendant suffered from a qualifying disease of the mind, but contested whether he was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing they were wrong.

The court found that while the defendant suffered from a mental disorder, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he lacked the requisite capacity under section 16, and therefore rejected the NCRMD application.

The accused was charged with four counts of theft under $5,000, 31 counts of failing to comply with probation orders, and one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary ground, arguing the accused posed a substantial risk to public safety.

The accused proposed release on his own recognizance with GPS monitoring, exclusion zones, and support from Sound Times.

The court found that the accused's lengthy criminal record, persistent pattern of breaching probation conditions, and repeated re-offending at the same locations demonstrated a substantial risk to public safety.

The proposed release plan was found insufficient to mitigate this risk.

While the court acknowledged the accused's vulnerabilities under s. 493.2(b) of the Criminal Code, including mental health challenges and status as a Black man, these did not outweigh the public safety concerns.

The court ordered the accused's detention under the secondary ground.

The accused was sentenced for intimidating a justice system participant (a provincial prosecutor) under section 423.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused sent threatening emails and made phone calls to the prosecutor and his wife at their home address in the early morning hours after the prosecutor declined to resolve the accused's Highway Traffic Act charges on favorable terms.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with 12 months of house arrest and GPS monitoring, followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the offence was serious and pre-meditated, the accused's untreated schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and related mental health issues materially contributed to the commission of the offence and warranted a reduction from the baseline custodial sentence of 18 months.

The accused was convicted after trial of aggravated assault and failing to comply with probation.

He stabbed the victim four times in the back on February 9, 2024, at a makeshift shelter near Jane and Finch in Toronto.

The court found a causal link between the accused's schizophrenia and the offence, despite the Crown's submission that the accused's calm demeanor on video surveillance negated any such connection.

The court imposed a three-year sentence, accounting for the accused's mental illness, strong family support, good character when stable, difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, and rehabilitation prospects, while also recognizing the serious and unprovoked nature of the attack and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges: threatening a corrections officer, assault with a weapon against his domestic partner, and breach of a bail order not to possess weapons.

The Crown sought seven months custody plus three years probation.

The defendant sought ninety days intermittent custody plus probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation and ancillary orders, crediting fifty-four real days of pre-sentence custody as equivalent to eighty-one days.

The judgment reflects extensive consideration of the defendant's traumatic background, mental health issues, and systemic failures in the criminal justice system, while acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson endangering life after setting a fire in his girlfriend's apartment on October 18, 2019, causing approximately $73,000 in damage.

The offender was intoxicated and under the influence of multiple substances at the time.

He had locked and barricaded the apartment door, impeding rescue efforts.

The offender set the fire in an attempt to commit suicide.

The Crown sought two years less a day plus probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence citing pre-sentence custody, immigration consequences, and COVID-19 pandemic considerations.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months incarceration less 9 months and 3 days pre-sentence custody, resulting in 2 months and 27 days to serve, followed by three years of probation.

The court considered significant mitigating factors including the offender's mental illness, lack of criminal record, remorse, and guilty plea, balanced against aggravating factors including the serious nature of the fire and danger to other building occupants.

Following the defendant's conviction for assaulting two women, the Crown applied for an order for an assessment of the defendant's mental condition to determine whether he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant opposed the application.

The court found that the Crown satisfied the requirements under section 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code by establishing reasonable grounds to doubt the defendant's criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder.

The defendant had a history of schizoaffective disorder, had ceased taking his prescribed medication, and was experiencing active delusions and hallucinations at the time of the offences.

The court ordered a 30-day assessment.

The offender pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle dangerously causing bodily harm contrary to section 320.13(2) of the Criminal Code.

On April 11, 2019, the offender deliberately crossed the centre line of Highway 17 in an attempt to commit suicide by colliding with an oncoming tractor-trailer.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including facial lacerations, loss of an ear, crushed vertebrae, and permanent hearing loss.

The offender was suffering from major depressive disorder with psychotic features at the time of the offence.

The court imposed a 9-month custodial sentence, a 7-year driving prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA collection, $2,500 restitution, and 3 years probation.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and general deterrence against rehabilitation and restraint, recognizing the offender's mental illness while holding him accountable for the unacceptable risk posed to others.

The Crown applied for an adjournment of trial on the first day of a two-day trial for refusing to provide a sample into a roadside screening device.

The key Crown witness, Police Constable Toms, was unable to attend in person due to COVID-19 isolation protocols but was available to testify remotely via Zoom.

The Crown's adjournment application was based on a Toronto Police Service policy prohibiting officers from testifying remotely unless from a courthouse using Ministry of the Attorney General equipment.

The court rejected the adjournment application, finding the policy troubling and contrary to public health guidance, and determined that the officer was able to attend court by Zoom to give evidence.

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm, breach of probation (failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour), and possession of prohibited incendiary devices.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and represented himself.

The Crown initially raised a not criminally responsible (NCR) defence but abandoned it after a psychiatric assessment concluded the defendant did not qualify.

However, after receiving additional material including prior court transcripts, the Crown renewed the NCR application.

The trial judge found the defendant NCR for the assault and related breach of probation based on the totality of evidence, despite the psychiatrist's opinion to the contrary.

The defendant was convicted of the lighter possession charge and sentenced to one day in jail, with disposition to be determined by the Ontario Review Board.

The Crown brought an application under section 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code seeking an order for a mental assessment to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offences that would render him exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(1).

The accused faced charges including break and enter, fail to comply with probation orders, resist peace officer, theft, and mischief.

The defence opposed the application.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding insufficient reasonable grounds to believe the accused suffered from a mental disorder or that he did not know his actions were wrong at the time of the offences.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the defendant's conviction for two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, and one count of breach of recognizance.

The defendant attacked two victims with a knife in an unprovoked manner, causing serious injuries that could have been fatal.

The court found the defendant met the criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753(1)(a)(ii) based on a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to consequences.

Despite evidence that the defendant's schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorder were theoretically treatable, the court concluded his violent conduct was intractable due to his consistent failure to seek and follow psychiatric treatment, lack of insight into his illness, and resistance to treatment.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding that neither a determinate sentence nor a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

The Crown brought an application seeking an order pursuant to section 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit three police constables to testify remotely by video-link from the Sault Ste.

Marie police station rather than in person at trial.

The accused opposed the application, arguing that in-person testimony was essential given the nature of the charges involving direct physical and verbal interaction between the officers and the accused.

The court granted the application, finding that the video-link technology would not impair the accused's right to a fair trial, that the officers' status as front-line workers exposed to COVID-19 presented a legitimate safety concern, and that suitable safeguards could be implemented to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

Application by a family physician for an order committing a 17-year-old youth with a history of traumatic brain injury and complex mental health issues to a secure treatment program at Syl Apps for 180 days.

The youth initially opposed the application but subsequently consented after meeting with the Clinical Director.

The court found that all six statutory criteria under s. 164 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were satisfied: the youth had a mental disorder (Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, likely ADHD, and borderline intellectual functioning); had caused or attempted to cause serious bodily harm within 45 days preceding the application; had made substantial threats of self-harm within the preceding 12 months; the secure treatment program would be effective; appropriate treatment was available at Syl Apps; and no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The court granted the order for the maximum 180-day commitment period.

A mother sought a motion for the return of her infant son to her care or to the paternal grandparents' care following the Children's Aid Society's temporary suspension of all supervised access and parenting support programs due to COVID-19.

The court dismissed the motion seeking return to parental care and the alternative claim for residence with paternal grandparents, finding insufficient evidence and lack of cooperation with court directions.

The court upheld the Society's temporary suspension of face-to-face access as justified by public health concerns, while acknowledging the importance of physical contact between mother and child under normal circumstances.

The Crown brought an application for a warrant to take bodily samples (DNA) from the respondent pursuant to section 487.05 of the Criminal Code.

While the judge found that the statutory preconditions for issuance of the warrant had been met, the application was dismissed without prejudice.

The dismissal was based on the judge's determination that insufficient evidence regarding COVID-19 safety protocols and procedures had been presented to satisfy the requirement that issuance be in the best interests of the administration of justice.

The judge identified ten specific issues that should be addressed in future applications, including safety of sample collection, personal protective equipment availability, screening procedures, and potential collateral consequences for the detainee.

The custodial father brought a motion to suspend the mother's face-to-face parenting time with their 12-year-old son during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the child's alleged medical vulnerability and concerns about the mother's ability to follow health protocols.

The mother opposed the motion and sought restoration of her parenting time with make-up access.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting assessment of the child's best interests but determined that the child's medical condition did not justify suspension of access.

While the mother had engaged in one instance of non-compliance with physical distancing protocols, the court found this insufficient to warrant radical alteration of the existing parenting arrangement.

The court restored the mother's parenting time with minor modifications to address COVID-19 health concerns and granted make-up time for missed access.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking in-person access to her infant son, who was placed in the care of the maternal grandparents following serious non-accidental injuries sustained while in parental care.

The child was hospitalized with traumatic brain injuries, including subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and bruising.

The society opposed the motion, seeking to maintain virtual-only access due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns, particularly given the child's medical vulnerability.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and upheld the suspension of in-person access, finding that the child's fragile medical condition and the evolving pandemic risks outweighed the benefits of face-to-face contact at that time.

A mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking to suspend the father's in-person access with the children due to health and safety concerns.

The mother reported that she and the children exhibited COVID-19 symptoms, and the father's parents had recently returned from international travel.

The court found that most of the mother's requests were not urgent but determined that temporary suspension of in-person access was warranted based on the children's health circumstances and the father's failure to provide information regarding COVID-19 safety measures.

The court ordered that in-person access be suspended temporarily and replaced with virtual contact via Skype, FaceTime, and telephone, pending further determination of urgency.

The Crown sought a finding that the defendant was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder for two assaults committed on strangers.

The defendant opposed the finding.

The court found the defendant criminally responsible, holding that the Crown failed to displace the presumption of criminal responsibility.

The court found that the expert opinion relied heavily on materials not before the court, significantly diminishing its weight, and that the question of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offences was too speculative and tenuous to support an NCR finding.