Paige Miltenburg

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing a detention order.

The appellant argued the Board failed to properly apply the statutory test for significant threat and failed to adequately explain why a detention order was the least onerous disposition.

The Court of Appeal held the Board's decision was reasonable, noting the appellant's refusal to take psychotropic medication for his delusional beliefs and the ongoing risk to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ottawa Hospital requested leave at a case conference to bring a summary judgment motion to be heard alongside the University's scheduled anti-SLAPP and Rule 21 motions.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the request.

The court denied the hospital's request, finding that the proposed summary judgment motion was a 'step in the proceeding' and was therefore barred by the non-discretionary automatic stay under section 137.1(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also found that hearing the motions together would not improve efficiency and that the hospital would not suffer prejudice by waiting.

The plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim for a fourth time.

The defendant physicians opposed several amendments, arguing they introduced new statute-barred claims for wrongful death and spoliation of evidence, added new allegations based on unpleaded facts, and impermissibly withdrew prior admissions.

The court allowed most of the amendments, finding they merely particularized the existing factual matrix, but struck specific sentences that implicitly advanced a statute-barred wrongful death claim, contained inflammatory language, or pleaded immaterial legal conclusions regarding non-delegable duties.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer questions refused on discovery and fulfill an undertaking regarding legal advice the plaintiffs received from another lawyer.

The plaintiffs argued the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the plaintiffs had put their state of mind and reliance in issue in their claim for solicitors' negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, thereby implicitly waiving privilege over communications with their other lawyer regarding the transactions at issue.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to answer the questions and produce the unredacted invoice as unconditionally undertaken.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and criminal harassment.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had made significant progress in his treatment and rehabilitation at the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, balancing public safety with the accused's needs under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the Board determined that a conditional discharge was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had been residing in a supervised group home and demonstrating relative stability.

Based on psychiatric evidence and joint submissions, the Board concluded the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge requiring the accused to reside at the group home, with a provision authorizing police to arrest and return her to the hospital in the event of a breach.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, had recently been readmitted to the hospital from a supervised residence after purchasing weapons due to paranoia.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order, specifying that the risk can only be managed by 24-hour supervised accommodation, and expanded the catchment area to Eastern Ontario to facilitate suitable housing placement.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

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

The Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, citing the gravity of the index offences, a concurrent second-degree murder conviction, and a history of severe substance abuse triggering psychotic episodes.

The Board ordered a detention order with limited privileges for medical, dental, legal, and compassionate purposes, along with conditions including a weapons prohibition and abstention from substances.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible, was subject to a disposition allowing community privileges.

After a positive drug screen, he eloped for three days.

Upon his return, the hospital significantly increased the restrictions on his liberty by admitting him to a high secure unit.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code and found that the hospital's decision to readmit him to the secure unit and the continued restrictions were necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive response available.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board of a significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty following his readmission to the hospital from a community residence.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and a history of substance use, was found in possession of knives and experiencing increased paranoia and cravings.

The Board held a hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code and found that the hospital's decision to readmit the accused and his continued detention were necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to public safety.

The appellant, Amy Smith Cox, appealed a detention order of the Ontario Review Board that found she continued to pose a significant threat of serious harm to the public and imposed a no-contact provision with her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the significant threat finding but allowed the appeal in part regarding the no-contact provision, varying it to permit contact with her father at the discretion of the treatment team.

The appellant, Sami Kazi, appealed the October 24, 2024 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him Not Criminally Responsible and ordered his detention with conditions.

After a subsequent Board hearing in January 2025 resulted in a new disposition, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot, as the original disposition was no longer operative.

The court found no live controversy remained and declined to exercise discretion to hear the appeal, noting the issues were fact-specific and overtaken by events.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and severe substance use disorders, had maintained abstinence and compliance with treatment, demonstrating intrinsic motivation for recovery.

However, the Board found he remained a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence when untreated or using substances.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital but expanded his privileges to include indirectly supervised passes, the ability to reside in approved accommodation in Gatineau, and travel privileges to facilitate his reintegration.

The moving party hospital sought to compel the responding party physician to answer questions and produce documents regarding his financial income on cross-examination.

The physician had applied for a stay of the hospital's decision to suspend his privileges, alleging irreparable harm to his professional reputation and status, but not financial loss.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the financial information was not relevant to the issues on the stay motion because the physician was not relying on financial harm to meet the RJR-MacDonald test.

The respondent hospital brought a motion to compel the applicant physician to answer questions and produce documents regarding his financial income, which he had refused during cross-examination.

The cross-examination occurred in the context of the physician's motion to stay the hospital's decision to suspend his privileges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the physician did not allege financial harm in his stay motion, relying instead on loss of professional satisfaction and reputation.

Therefore, the financial information sought was irrelevant to the issues of irreparable harm and balance of convenience.

The plaintiff, 366012 Ontario Inc., brought a status hearing motion under Rule 48.14(15) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to show cause why its action for alleged misappropriation of funds should not be dismissed for delay.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, which included health issues of its counsel, multiple changes in counsel, and scheduling conflicts with the defendants' counsel, as well as delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also determined that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action were allowed to proceed, despite the historical nature of the allegations and the health issues of some defendants.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to continue under a strict new timetable, with no costs awarded to either party.