Ontario Review Board
Re: Michael Lawrence
ORB File No: 6838
Hearing held on: Friday, May 8, 2026
Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley
Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. L. Leong Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Michael Lawrence Counsel: Ms. C. Whillier
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 3, 2026)
Introduction:
On October 7, 2015, Mr. Michael Lawrence was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on two charges of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Since his NCR finding, Mr. Lawrence has been subject to Dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), most recently a Disposition dated May 27, 2025, discharging him subject to a variety of terms and conditions, including that he reside at a specified address, report to the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) not less than once every four weeks, consent to take treatment pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code, refrain from being in possession of a weapon, and abstain from the non-medical use of alcohol and other intoxicants.
On May 8, 2026, a panel of the ORB a hearing at CAMH to review Mr. Lawrence’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Lawrence attended the hearing with his counsel, Ms. Whillier.
The issues for the Board to decide at the hearing were first whether Mr. Lawrence is a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition for the coming year based on a consideration of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons which follow, the Board finds Mr. Lawrence is a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge, as set forth in his formal Disposition.
Initial Positions:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial positions. Hospital counsel recommended a continuation of the current Disposition with no changes.
Crown counsel supported the hospital's position.
Ms. Whillier, on behalf of Mr. Lawrence, indicated that if the Board found that her client was not entitled to an absolute discharge, she agreed with the hospital’s position.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated May 23, 2024, as follows:
“The accused in this matter, Michael Lawrence is related to the victims…. His mother (victim #1) is one of the victims and the brother (victim #2) is the other. They all reside at the same address….
On Friday October the 5th, 2012… the accused’s mother was asleep in her bedroom when she woke to find the accused standing in her room. When asked what he was doing, the accused left the room. The victim got up to use the bathroom and she saw the accused, who asked her to talk and to come to his bedroom. The victim refused.
As they stood in the hallway near the bathroom, the victim saw that the accused was carrying a knife in his right hand and a large wooden sword in his left. The victim tried to take the knife away from the accused. The accused and the victim began to struggle as the victim yelled for her son, the other victim, to help her.
The daughter of the victim (sister of the accused) woke up and the victim yelled at her to call 911. The second victim woke as well and assisted in helping his mother fend off the accused.
The accused used the large wooden sword to push the victim away and then proceeded to stab both victims several times. The victims continued to struggle with the accused down the stairs to the main floor, where the accused fled out the front door."
Personal Background:
The details of Mr. Lawrence’s personal, psychiatric and criminal history are set out in the Hospital Report dated March 22, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”) which was entered as an Exhibit at the hearing and need not be repeated in detail here. Briefly stated, Mr. Lawrence was 36 years old at the time of the hearing. He is the youngest of three siblings. His parents separated when he was young.
He reported that his father was involved in ministering in the Revival Church. In his work, his father would give ‘spiritual baths.” This practice eventually led to charges of sexual assault which resulted in a four-year prison sentence.
There was also economic hardship in his childhood and at one point the Children's Aid Society was involved for a few months after Mr. Lawrence told his teacher that he had been hit by his mother. He dropped out of school at the age of 16, but returned sporadically for the next seven years, completing grade 11 at the age of 23.
Mr. Lawrence held a variety of jobs over the years but had a pattern of quitting after a few months.
Mr. Lawrence reportedly began using marijuana at the age of 14 or 15, and he consumed it regularly. He also drank alcohol. Prior to the commission of the index offences, he had been smoking 2-3 marijuana cigarettes on a daily basis.
Mr. Lawrence has never married and has no children.
Criminal History:
- Prior to the index offences, Mr. Lawrence had criminal convictions for aggravated assault (2005), possession of a weapon, failure to comply with a probation order and robbery (2008), and trafficking in cocaine (2010). Both the robbery and trafficking convictions resulted in significant jail sentences.
Psychiatric History:
Mr. Lawrence has a long and significant history of mental health issues commencing in 2005, when he was admitted to the Child and Adolescent Unit of the Humber River Regional Hospital. He did not maintain follow up and was inconsistent with medication compliance.
Since coming under the jurisdiction of the ORB, Mr. Lawrence has had no admissions to hospital. After being found NCR, he remained in the community and was followed by the CAMH downtown East ACT team from February to April 2016. He was then transferred to the EFOPS team under the care of Dr. Duff. He was declared incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment on April 5, 2017. His mother is his substitute decision maker (“SDM”). Since 2017, he has cooperated in receiving monthly intramuscular injections at the FOPS clinic.
Mr. Lawrence lived in a one-bedroom apartment in a supported housing residence through HouseLinks before electing to return to the family home in July 2018, where he was living at the time of this hearing. Since living in the community, he has supported by the Forensic Outpatient Service (“FOP”).
On April 30, 2020, Mr. Lawrence was granted a Conditional Discharge with conditions including, among others, that he resides at his parents’ home and that he consent to treatment pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.
Since November 2023, Mr. Lawrence has reported regular use of cannabis and, by his self-report, he smokes one to two joints a day at the conclusion of his workday. This is in contravention of the requirement that he abstain from use of intoxicants as set forth in his existing ORB Disposition.
Current Diagnosis:
- Mr. Lawrence’s current diagnoses:
Schizophrenia;
Cannabis Use Disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Hospital Report dated April 13, 2026, was led in evidence. The Hospital Report set out the following:
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: June 2025 to April 2026
Mr. Lawrence continued to reside at the address specified in his disposition during the reporting year. He remained employed as a forklift operator at Fast Freight, with work shifts occurring between 6pm and 2am from Monday to Friday.
Mr. Lawrence’s mental health status mirrored the previous reporting year for the most part. He continued to experience, in the clinical team’s opinion, residual psychotic symptoms in the form of feeling the presence of a spiritual entity. Regarding this experience, he explained on March 17, 2026, “I still have senses, I still have some but nothing that bothers me, but I can’t get rid off in my thoughts. I don’t think about these things, I just try to work. I just try to occupy my time.”
Mr. Lawrence remained incapable of consenting to treatment. The PG&T provided substitute consent as his mother did not seek to return to the role of SDM. Treatment for the most part entailed aripiprazole LAI 300mg every four weeks. Of note, on November 27, 2025, his clinical team found out the Mr. Lawrence did not receive a dose of the long acting injectable due on November 11, 2025, via the FOPS injection clinic. At the time, his MRP and primary case manager were away.
Additionally, the clinic did not have a scheduler system implemented and handover regarding the LAI was not provided to the covering case manager. Mr. Lawrence was informed about this and about the hospital’s outpatient pharmacy to load aripiprazole. Consent was obtained from PG&T on November 27, 2025, for administration of a 400mg dose of aripiprazole LAI and provision of a prescription for 10mg aripiprazole 10mg daily for 2 weeks as part of the pharmacy suggested loading protocol. Mr. Lawrence reluctantly agreed to this. He was reassured that the subsequent dosing of the aripiprazole injection would be 300mg every four weeks. To his credit, he accepted the loading protocol and returned to the 300mg once every four week dose of injectable aripiprazole. During this period, his mental state remained unchanged. Since this episode, leadership within the FOPS clinic confirmed the implementation of a scheduler with notification pertaining to when the next injection would be due.
Regarding substances, Mr. Lawrence used cannabis daily and occasionally consumed alcohol. On November 27, 2025, urine drug screen results for cocaine were below cutoff. On December 24, 2025, urine drug screen results were positive for cocaine. When asked about the same on January 14, 2026, Mr. Lawrence denied that he used cocaine. When provided the urine drug screen results, he reported that that he may have kissed female partners who used powdered cocaine in his presence. However, he denied using the same. He was made aware, at the time, that should there be concerns around ongoing cocaine use a Ministry of Transportation medical condition report will be warranted. Subsequent urine drug screens completed on an approximately monthly basis tested negative for cocaine. Additionally, on January 19, 2026, he reported “staying away” from the female acquaintances that used cocaine.
In terms of physical health, Mr. Lawrence began to recover from his knee surgery earlier in the reporting year and attended physiotherapy twice per week. By September 2025, he returned to full time work. Around July 2025, he experienced stomach pain and attended the emergency department. There were no subsequent episodes of recurring abdominal pain. Despite previously being prescribed metformin for non-insulin dependent diabetes, he did not take the medication due to side effects.
With respect to finances, Mr. Lawrence continued to have a portion of his ODSP remittances ascribed to the CERB related payments. He also accrued debt with his phone company and the same was forwarded to a collection agency. His return to work reportedly enabled him to make debt related payments.
Mr. Lawrence began virtual individual therapy on October 20, 2025. During the first session, he endorsed that he had been “trying to ask for a discontinuation of the medication as he does not believe he is mentally ill or in need of the medication.” In terms of past symptoms, it was noted that, “He recalled he experienced voices in the past, ‘knife wound feelings,’ and ‘sexual feelings.’ When it was suggested that these were hallucinations, it was noted that, “he stated that such experiences were not occurring much anymore as he stated he ‘got it under control.’" When asked how this was done, he reported that he had “detached his soul from these experiences.” He also informed his therapist that he wished “to show people that he is not mentally ill and is working towards an Absolute Discharge.”
He continued to attend weekly individual therapy sessions until December 15, 2025. At the time, he reported not seeing any benefit from individual therapy and “was never really interested” in the same. He also did “not wish to continue with therapy” but part of him expressed a desire to “continue because he likes talking” to his therapist. The frequency of sessions was reduced to once a month. However, he rescheduled his appointment in March 27 2026, and was a “no show” on April 1, 2026.
Insight was re-explored on April 2, 2026, Mr. Lawrence reported that he disagrees with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and did not feel ongoing treatment was needed. He took medications in the context of the ORB. He described treatment as being “drugged.” He also reported being able to manage independently without any intervention.
MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION (March 2026)
Mr. Lawrence appeared his age. He wore appropriate casual clothing and presented as kempt. He maintained a calm and unagitated comportment. His speech was normal in terms of rate, rhythm, and volume. There was an absence of internal preoccupation and he reported no auditory hallucinations. There were no self-harm or violent ideations. He continued to endorse feeling the presence of a spirit based entity, residual symptoms. Overall, his thought form and behaviours were organized. His insight into the presence of an underlying primary psychotic illness, schizophrenia, ongoing need for treatment, and impact of psychoactive substance use, including in the context of use without opposing antipsychotic treatment, remained limited.
Re-offence Scenario/Composite Assessment of Risk
In the absence of ORB involvement, the most likely re-offence scenario is one where Mr. Lawrence stops antipsychotic treatment, disengages from mental health services, continues with cannabis use, and becomes exposed to other psychoactive substance such as cocaine (as was the case in the current reporting year). These factors independently or in combination are likely to result in mental state decompensation and active psychotic symptoms. He is likely to incorporate individuals in his proximity, as was the case at the time of the index offences, into his experience of psychosis and engage in violent behaviours towards them. Thus, on balance, he remains a significant threat to public safety.
When accounting for the above risk assessment and reoffence scenario, in the context of the current disposition with no changes, Mr. Lawrence’s risk for violence falls in the low-moderate range. In the context of an absolute discharge, his risk falls is high. Consequently, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with no changes.
In addition to the Hospital Report, the Board heard oral testimony from Dr. D. Jaiswal who has been Mr. Lawrence’s treating forensic psychiatrist over the past reporting year.
The doctor advised that Mr. Lawrence continues to be assessed as incapable to consent to psychiatric treatment and the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee acts as his substitute decision maker (“SDM”).
Dr. Jaiswal updated the Board that, since the Hospital Report was made, Mr. Lawrence has withdrawn from participating in individual therapy after one “no show” and has indicated that he doesn’t want to continue with it. As well, his work shift has changed and is hours of work are now 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Fast Freight.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that, overall, Mr. Lawrence has had a positive year with a few setbacks. Concerns arose after a UDS tested positive for cocaine in December 2025. Dr. Jaiswal gave evidence that Mr. Lawrence attributed this positive screen to romantic involvement with partner who used cocaine. Dr. Jaiswal testified that he discussed with Mr. Lawrence concerns he had about Mr. Lawrence driving safety if he continued to use cocaine and the possible resulting report to the Ministry of Transportation. Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Lawrence hasn’t tested positive for cocaine since then but that he continues to use cannabis regularly, and, despite this use, he has remained clinically stable and experienced no decompensation. Dr. Jaiswal opined that anti-psychotic medication may mitigate cannabis use. Dr. Jaiswal added that Mr. Lawrence hasn’t used alcohol in months.
With respect to Mr. Lawrence’s position that he had a positive UDS as a result of a romantic encounter, Dr. Jaiswal testified that he could not fully rely on Mr. Lawrence’s self-report and that, in order to have the drug screen result that he had, there is a low likelihood it was caused by second-hand exposure to the drug.
With respect to his cannabis use, Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Lawrence continues to experience psychotic symptoms and that he reports that he sometimes feels a spiritual entity influencing his thoughts. Dr. Jaiswal opined that if Mr. Lawrence continues to use psycho-active substances, it could have a negative impact on his mental health. Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Lawrence thinks he does not have a mental health issue, that anti-psychotic medications have no role to play in his life and he would be OK if he just used cannabis, and that he can, through his own volition, dispel these experiences.
Dr. Jaiswal opined that, if granted an absolute discharge, Mr. Lawrence would likely fall away from care, would not follow up with his clinical appointments, would stop taking his anti-psychotic medication, experience hallucinations and psychotic symptoms and paranoia, may start carrying weapons, may incorporate others into his paranoid delusions and a very dangerous situation would result. Dr. Jaiswal added that anti-psychotic medication is the cornerstone of managing Mr. Lawrence’s risk.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence stopped attending individual therapy, which was a venue in which he could discuss stressors, even though Mr. Lawrence made only limited gains regarding his insight while engaging in such therapy.
Dr. Jaiwal testified that Mr. Lawrence would like an absolute discharge in part because he doesn’t think he has a psychotic illness and that his psychiatric medications and treatment is unwarranted. Dr. Jaiswal opined that such thinking results from Mr. Lawrence’s limited insight.
With respect to goals for Mr. Lawrence over the coming year in the event that the Board orders a continuation of a conditional discharge, Dr. Jaiswal testified that the treatment team will take a harm reduction approach regarding Mr. Lawrence’s use of substances. Dr. Jaiswal gave evidence that, if Mr. Lawrence again tests positive for cocaine, the team will evaluate his mental state and the issue of his driving, which is necessary for him to be able to work. Mr. Lawrence needs to drive to and from work and requires a driver’s licence to operate a forklift. Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that the possible loss of his driver’s licence is a powerful external control and agreed that, if an absolute discharge was granted, this external control would no longer exist.
With respect to treatment, Dr. Jaiswal testified that he would like to explore a version of an injectable anti-psychotic that needs to be injected only once every 8 weeks, but which is not covered by OHIP. However, Mr. Lawrence has some health coverage at work which might cover this treatment and that will be explored.
In response to a question with respect to the impact of Mr. Lawrence’s cannabis use on his mental stability, Dr. Jaiswal testified that he would not green light Mr. Lawrence smoking as much cannabis as he would like and that he reports that he smokes one or two joints after work and not before driving. Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that he is relying on Mr. Lawrence’s self-report in this regard and, as long as Mr. Lawrence remains on his anti-psychotic medication and his mental state remains stable, he will maintain a harm reduction approach in Mr. Lawrence’s case. Dr. Jaiswal added that, thus far, Mr. Lawrence’s use of cannabis has not resulted in decompensation and that, even when he tested positive for cocaine, there was no decompensation, likely the result of the mitigating effects of his anti-psychotic medication. Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that there have been no subsequent positive screens for cocaine.
With respect to Mr. Lawrence’s urine screens, Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Lawrence is tested approximately once per month and that the date of the test is predictable and that it is possible that Mr. Lawrence could be using substances but abstains prior to testing and then obtains a negative UDS result. Dr. Jaiswal testified that the treatment team could consider more frequent and more random UDS screening.
With respect to Mr. Lawrence’s continuing to experience symptoms of his mental illness and whether any treatment could be given that would mitigate or reduce these symptoms, Dr. Jaiswal opined that a reduction in his cannabis use or an increase in his dose of anti-psychotic medications might help, but, from a risk management perspective, Mr. Lawrence hasn’t engaged in violent behaviour.
Dr. Jaiswal opined that Mr. Lawrence’s belief that cannabis could alleviate his mental health issues is incorrect and noted that Mr. Lawrence has used cannabis since adolescence.
In response to a question as to whether individual therapy may benefit Mr. Lawrence given his traumatic childhood, Dr. Jaiswal testified that, although it could, there would be challenges of exploring trauma when Mr. Lawrence might not be open to dealing with it so it would need to be approached with caution.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Lawrence still owes money to ODSP as a result of having received CERB payments, but this stressor hasn’t resulted in destabilization and Mr. Lawrence has made a payment plan and is slowing paying back the overpayment.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that the treatment team would review increasing and randomizing Mr. Lawrence’s urine screens.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence’s insight remains limited but, to his credit, although he is dissatisfied with the injectable anti-psychotic, he consents to treatment and remains medication compliant.
With respect to the suitability of a community treatment order for Mr. Lawrence in the absence of oversight by the Board, Dr. Jaiwal testified that there are six criteria needed to get a community treatment order and each one of those criteria is a potential point of failure and that is risk enhancing.
With respect to whether Mr. Lawrence’s long-acting injectable could be administered by a family doctor, Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Lawrence doesn’t have a consistent primary care provider, including one for his diabetes and that Mr. Lawrence uses a walk-in clinic or an emergency department when he needs medical care.
Dr. Jaiswal opined that, in order for Mr. Lawrence to obtain an absolute discharge, he would like to see a more pro-active engagement by Mr. Lawrence with the treatment team, improved insight regarding his illness and the need for treatment as well as the potential harm to himself and others which could result from his illness, and abstinence from substances. Dr. Jaiswal added that, when you discuss these issues with Mr. Lawrence, he responds by saying that his is not ill and can control his illness through his own volition.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence continues to reside with his mother and that he believes that she would reach out to the treatment team if issues arose. With respect to his workplace, the treatment team has no communication with Mr. Lawrence’s workplace and would need his consent to reach out to his employer.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence has never fully remitted in psychiatric symptoms and continues to have the experience of a spiritual being present, which Dr. Jaiswal opined could be related to his ongoing cannabis use. Dr. Jaiswal testified that the treatment team hasn’t explored other services such as chaplaincy for Mr. Lawrence but that it could be explored in the upcoming year.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Lawrence’s mother no longer wanted to have the role of substitute decision maker in order to avoid sources of conflict between her and Mr. Lawrence and therefore that role has been taken over by the Public Guardian and Trustee.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence’s poor insight into his illness if a big factor and it is unlikely to improve in the near future, but having improved insight would be a pathway to an absolute discharge. Dr. Jaiswal added that a pathway to an absolute discharge is very challenging but that the team will work with him to develop his insight.
Dr. Jaiswal also opined that as Mr. Lawrence ages, the burden of symptoms might decrease. In addition, Dr. Jaiswal testified that if Mr. Lawrence abstained from cannabis for a durable length of time, his ongoing symptoms might remit.
With respect to the travel provision in Mr. Lawrence’s disposition, Dr. Jaiswal testified that if Mr. Lawrence had a robust safety plan, an approved itinerary, was maintaining stability and had a family member to travel with, travel could be approved.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence has had stable employment for many years and that it was a significant positive factor for him.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence’s employment income interferes with his ability to receive ODSP benefits.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence’s self-report is that he smokes cannabis in the family home after work and not while out with friends.
Counsel for Mr. Lawrence pointed out that there was a period in 2019-2020, prior to Dr. Jaiswal becoming Mr. Lawrence’s psychiatrist, that Mr. Lawrence was abstinent and Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that the evidence appears to be that Mr. Lawrence was asymptomatic during that period.
Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that Mr. Lawrence’s mental status is currently stable.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Final Positions:
Both the hospital and the Crown maintained their joint recommendation in closing submissions.
Ms. Whillier asked the Board to consider carefully the issue of significant threat, and, if the Board found that Mr. Lawrence continues to meet that threshold, then she agreed with the submission of the hospital and the Crown.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that Mr. Lawrence continues to represent a significant risk to the community. He suffers from a major mental illness which is further complicated by his ongoing substance use. He continues to experience residual psychotic symptoms and has poor insight into his mental illness. Mr. Lawrence denies having a mental illness, believes his symptoms are controlled by his cannabis and by his own volition and does not pro-actively engage with the treatment team, although he has remained medication compliant and his mental status has remained stable.
The Board accepts the testimony of Dr. Jaiswal and the hospital that, if granted an absolute discharge, Mr. Lawrence is likely to fall away from treatment, stop taking his anti-psychotic medication, experience an intensification of his symptoms, continue to use cannabis and possibly increase his use of cannabis and possibly cocaine. Such a scenario would likely lead to decompensation and the risk of aggressive and violent behaviour as a result. The Board noted the seriousness of the index offences, which could have resulted in fatalities as well as Mr. Lawrence’s past behaviour which had included a charge of aggravated assault in 2005.
The panel is mindful of the fact that the doctor’s evidence highlighted the fact that there have also been positive developments. Over the year in review Mr. Lawrence has remained medication compliant, has not engaged in any incidents of aggression or violence and has continued to reside in stable housing with his family. However, he has continued to breach the terms of his ORB Disposition by self-reported daily use of cannabis and has tested positive for cocaine once during the reporting year. Fortunately, despite regular cannabis use, he has not suffered a decompensation in his mental state, although he continues to experience residual symptoms.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that the treatment team is taking a measured, harm-reduction approach to Mr. Lawrence’s regular substance use; however, Mr. Lawrence is well aware that continued substance use is an impediment to obtaining an absolute discharge, and could result in his readmission and/or the possible loss of his ability to drive and the attendant effects on his ability to maintain his current employment.
In considering all of the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Lawrence continues to pose a significant risk to the safety of the public and that the least onerous, least restrictive disposition is a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition. In making this Disposition, the Board has reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and has carefully considered the need to protect the safety of the public, the mental condition of Mr. Lawrence and his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 3rd day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. J. Ferguson Legal Member
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board