Ontario Review Board

The accused was found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle committed during a psychotic episode.

At her initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the Board found that she continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to her schizophrenia and alcohol use disorder.

The Board ordered a detention order with conditions, including permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation, abstention from substances, and a weapons prohibition.

The hospital requested an early review of the accused's disposition to amend his housing and reporting conditions.

The accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on a sexual assault charge, required a change from a 'locked residence' to '24/7 supervised accommodation' due to funding and placement delays.

The Ontario Review Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the amendments would facilitate the accused's community reintegration while appropriately managing his risk to public safety.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on charges of sexual assault and committing an indecent act.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine the appropriate disposition.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizo-affective disorder and a substance use disorder, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Due to a bed shortage at the hospital, the accused had been held at a detention centre.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, providing the hospital with flexibility to find appropriate housing that meets the accused's mental health needs while ensuring public safety.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for offences including kidnapping and dangerous driving, was subject to an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital had readmitted the accused following a hypomanic episode, significantly restricting his liberty.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and maintained his detention order with modified travel privileges.

The Board also concluded that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive course of action available to manage his increased risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty review for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple offences including assault with a weapon.

The accused, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder and severe substance use disorders, had recently relapsed, leading to a restriction of his liberty and transfer to a secure unit.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate, and that the restriction of liberty was justified and represented the least restrictive option available.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, was detained at a psychiatric hospital.

After testing positive for cocaine in breach of his disposition, the hospital significantly restricted his privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty.

The Board found that the restriction was necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous option to manage the increased risk of psychosis and harm to others caused by the accused's substance use.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and forcible confinement, is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission and the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his vulnerability to stress and risk of medication non-adherence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the existing terms and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the hospital's decision to readmit the NCR accused from his community residence, significantly increasing the restrictions on his liberty.

The accused's physical and mental health had precipitously declined, leading to verbal aggression and respiratory failure.

The Board found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to public safety and provide necessary care.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and mischief.

At her annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontradicted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused was asymptomatic, compliant with treatment, and assessed at a low risk of violent re-offending, the Board found she no longer posed a significant threat.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for robbery and weapons offences, was subject to a detention order at a forensic psychiatry program.

At his annual review hearing, his attending psychiatrist testified that his schizoaffective disorder was well-managed on clozapine and that his risk could be safely managed in the community with a Community Treatment Order and an Assertive Community Treatment team.

The Ontario Review Board accepted this uncontradicted evidence, finding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and failing to comply with probation.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder, substance use disorders, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to cognitive impairment, risk of medication non-compliance, and a history of violence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition at the hospital, with the removal of a clause permitting attendance at an indirectly supervised addictions treatment program, as the accused's cognitive issues rendered him unsuitable for such a program.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found permanently unfit to stand trial on charges of assault and second-degree murder.

The accused suffers from Korsakoff Syndrome and requires one-to-one supervision to manage aggressive behaviours.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the medical evidence, finding that the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at the hospital as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault after stabbing her partner.

At her initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and Crown sought a Detention Order, while the accused sought a Conditional Discharge.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, mood lability, and a history of medication non-compliance.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage her risk, as the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to ensure her continued treatment and supervision.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for failing to comply with probation and an appearance notice.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, continued to use cannabis and cocaine, leading to irritability and a restriction of his liberty by the hospital.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight, non-compliance with medication, and history of aggression when using substances.

The Board maintained the detention disposition and confirmed that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate.

The hospital requested an early Ontario Review Board hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, due to his escalating substance use and suspected medication non-compliance while living in the community.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and multiple substance use disorders, agreed with the hospital and the Attorney General that he remained a significant threat to public safety.

Relying on uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused's risk of violence increases with substance use and that the Mental Health Act is insufficient to manage this risk, the Board accepted the joint submission.

The Board revoked the conditional discharge and imposed a detention order with an abstinence clause to ensure continuous monitoring and timely intervention.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including uttering threats and assault.

The accused has schizophrenia and substance use disorders but has made significant progress living in the community under a detention disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to residual cognitive deficits, impulsivity, and limited insight into his need for ongoing psychiatric supervision.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition, concluding that a conditional discharge would remove necessary risk management structures.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of mischief, assault with a weapon, and assaulting a peace officer.

At an initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital reported that the accused's psychosis had been effectively treated and that he was intentionally exaggerating his misunderstanding of the court process to avoid being released to homelessness.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the medical evidence, finding that the accused had a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and could meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The accused was found fit to stand trial and ordered returned to court.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and uttering threats.

Applying the fitness test from R v Bharwani, the Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to persistent delusions and lack of insight into his schizophrenia.

However, the Board found he is not permanently unfit, as he has shown some improvement and could potentially become fit with further treatment.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at a high-secure forensic psychiatric facility to manage his significant threat to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an early review hearing to consider amending the accused's disposition to allow a travel pass to Montreal on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault offences and diagnosed with schizophrenia, requested the pass to visit his gravely ill aunt and father.

Based on a joint recommendation and the supportive evidence of the attending psychiatrist, the Board granted the request and amended the disposition to include the travel pass.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing and four restriction of liberty hearings for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and antisocial personality disorder, had experienced a deterioration in his mental state after his medication was reduced.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage his risk.

The Board renewed the detention disposition and found that the four periods of seclusion were warranted and the least restrictive options available at the time.