Paul E. Trenker

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault and breach of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had made significant progress in community reintegration but remained vulnerable to stressors.

Based on expert psychiatric evidence and a joint submission from all parties, the Board found the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with terms requiring the accused to reside at a specific supportive housing location and report to the hospital as required.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been residing in a transitional supportive housing program and making slow progress toward independent living.

The treating psychiatrist testified that the accused continues to pose a notable risk to public safety if left unsupervised, due to a history of medication non-adherence and symptom relapse.

The Board unanimously accepted the psychiatric evidence, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention disposition, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and breach of probation, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and neurocognitive impairment.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital with privileges up to and including residence in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and mischief.

The accused has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and a lengthy criminal history.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his history of non-compliance, substance use, and rapid decompensation when granted increased community access.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital with no changes to its terms and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for three counts of sexual assault.

The accused's diagnoses include schizophrenia and multiple substance use disorders.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition with terms and conditions, including a community living provision and a weapons prohibition, finding it necessary and appropriate to manage the threat while meeting the accused's needs.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault and uttering threats, suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and stimulant use disorder.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience command hallucinations and requires intensive hospital monitoring.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his Detention Order be continued.

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

The accused suffers from delusional disorder and cannabis use disorder.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused lacks insight into his illness and would likely decompensate and pose a risk of serious harm if released without supports.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a continuation of his detention disposition with a minor amendment to his conditions.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault with a weapon.

The Board heard evidence from the attending psychiatrist that the accused continues to suffer from schizophrenia and substance use disorders, and would likely disengage from treatment if left to his own devices.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his detention order be continued.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death or bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder and other conditions, had been living successfully in a supervised group home under a Conditional Discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his major mental illness, underdeveloped insight, and risk of noncompliance with medication if unsupervised.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge with the removal of the condition requiring alcohol and drug testing, as the accused had no recent history of substance abuse.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault, was subject to an annual review of his Conditional Discharge by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused requested an Absolute Discharge.

The Board considered expert psychiatric evidence indicating the accused suffers from treatment-refractory paranoid schizophrenia, lacks insight into his illness, and would likely cease medication and decompensate if discharged absolutely.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that the existing Conditional Discharge remain in place without amendment.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences committed while experiencing psychosis exacerbated by cannabis use, sought a Conditional Discharge to return to his home community.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the Detention Order.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded a Detention Order remained necessary to allow the hospital to oversee his gradual reintegration and ensure prompt readmission if his mental state deteriorated.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his Schizoaffective Disorder, Moderate Intellectual Disability, and history of violence when unmedicated.

The Board renewed his Conditional Discharge Disposition, noting he remains stable on medication and is awaiting an appropriate supervised community placement.

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

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, suffers from Schizophrenia, PTSD, and Polysubstance Use Disorder.

While the accused made significant progress over the past year, including medication compliance and near abstinence from substances, the Board accepted uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that a continuation of the existing Detention Order was the necessary and appropriate Disposition to safely manage his risk and support his gradual reintegration.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder after drowning her 10-month-old daughter while suffering from severe postpartum depression and bipolar disorder.

At her initial Ontario Review Board disposition hearing, all parties agreed she remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered her detained at the North Bay Regional Health Centre with a stepwise privilege plan, and directed her eventual transfer to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care to facilitate family support and community reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer.

The accused suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and substance use disorders, with a lengthy criminal history and a pattern of non-compliance with medication and court orders.

The Board found that the accused represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention order was issued with terms recommended by the hospital to allow for a gradual, stepwise approach to community access and monitoring.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including criminal harassment and assault.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

The Board found that the accused continues to be unfit to stand trial and is likely permanently unfit due to a profound intellectual disability.

The Board declined to recommend a stay of proceedings, finding that the accused poses a significant threat to public safety due to his fixation on children and lack of understanding of consequences.

A detention order was issued with conditions, including prohibitions on consuming intoxicating substances and having contact with children under 16 unless accompanied by an adult.

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

The accused had been discharged to a group home but was readmitted to the hospital after punching a co-resident.

The Board found that the accused remained unfit to stand trial, continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, and did not meet the prerequisites for a stay of proceedings.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order, finding the readmission and continued hospitalization to be necessary and appropriate.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the accused's fitness to stand trial.

The accused had previously been found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and failing to comply with a release order.

Based on the hospital report and testimony of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused's condition had improved with medication and psychoeducation, rendering her fit to stand trial.

The Board ordered her return to court and, finding a high likelihood she would become unfit if released, ordered her continued detention in the hospital pending her court appearance.

This decision concerns the assessment of costs following a successful trial where the plaintiff, Steele Industrial Supplies Inc., proved that the defendant, Sharon Elliott, had stolen $204,670.

Steele sought partial indemnity costs of $72,177.58.

The defendants argued for a lower award, contending that the plaintiff's initial evidentiary shortcomings and expanded expert scope unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding.

The court, applying the principles under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the proceeding complex and the costs sought by the plaintiff to be fair and reasonable, especially considering the defendants' significantly lower settlement offer.

The court dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the plaintiff's conduct and ordered the defendants to pay the full amount of costs sought.

In matrimonial proceedings, the court held a focused hearing to determine the beneficial ownership of a property gratuitously transferred by the respondent to himself and his adult son as joint tenants.

The applicant argued for a resulting trust, while the respondent contended it was a gift.

The court found that the respondent failed to provide clear, convincing, and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust, concluding that the respondent remained the beneficial owner of his son's one-half interest in the property.