Piera M. Pasloski

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and major neurocognitive disorder, presenting with severe cognitive impairment and intermittent aggression.

Applying the test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial as he cannot understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel.

Based on uncontroverted medical evidence, the Board concluded the accused is permanently unfit and remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order at the secure forensic unit.

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

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on assault charges.

The Board considered evidence from the treating physician and applied the fitness test from R v Bharwani.

The Board concluded that the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to cognitive impairment and communication limitations, but is not permanently unfit as he has shown some improvement.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order, finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and requires a high degree of supervision.

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

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for abduction, had been subject to a conditional discharge.

The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing she no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Crown opposed.

A majority of the Board found that the accused remained a significant threat due to her history of violence, antisocial personality disorder, and ongoing use of synthetic cannabinoids.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.

Two members dissented, finding the accused was entitled to an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, who has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had made some progress but continued to experience psychotic symptoms and engage in substance use.

All parties jointly recommended the continuation of the detention order.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order at the hospital is necessary and appropriate.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The hospital and the accused's counsel jointly recommended an absolute discharge, supported by expert psychiatric evidence that the accused was fully compliant with treatment, abstinent from alcohol, and no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

Applying the Supreme Court's framework in Winko, the Board accepted the unanimous clinical recommendation and granted the accused an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault and carrying a concealed weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living in the community under a Conditional Discharge.

Based on joint submissions and psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her severe mental illness and need for supervised medication compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge with an amendment allowing her to move to a new high-support housing facility.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for mischief, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of her disposition.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of her Detention Order, arguing she remained a significant threat to public safety due to her severe, treatment-refractory psychotic disorder, substance use, and history of unauthorized leaves.

The accused agreed with the finding and disposition, seeking only an amendment to the community living clause.

Applying the Winko test, the Board found the accused remained a significant threat and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the requested amendment, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions and sentences for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault with a weapon against his former spouse.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the W. (D.) framework, provided inadequate reasons, and erred in sentencing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal for the assault with a weapon counts and one sexual assault count, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and reasons sufficient.

However, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial for the second sexual assault count, finding the trial judge erred by concluding the appellant offered no evidence on consent when he had explicitly denied forcing himself on the complainant.

The sentence for the remaining sexual assault conviction was reduced from 10 months to 8 months.

P.B. appealed convictions for two counts of sexual assault and two counts of assault with a weapon.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred in concluding the accused offered no evidence regarding consent for one sexual assault count (anal sex), leading to that conviction being set aside and a new trial ordered.

The court upheld the convictions for the other sexual assault and the two assault with a weapon charges, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the R. v. W.(D.) framework or assessment of credibility.

The sentence for the remaining sexual assault conviction was reduced from 10 to 8 months due to the removal of an aggravating factor.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order made on the secondary ground.

The court held there was no error in principle by the justice of the peace, but found a material change in circumstances because the accused had since taken concrete steps toward addiction assessment and residential treatment.

The court concluded that the risk of further offending could be addressed through strict release terms, including mandatory attendance at a residential treatment program, house arrest pending admission and after completion, abstention terms, no-contact conditions, and substantial sureties.

The detention review application was granted and release was ordered on conditions.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a justice of the peace’s detention order denying bail on the secondary ground.

The court considered whether there had been an error in principle or a material change in circumstances since the original bail hearing.

The applicant argued that a proposed surety was no longer supervising another accused and could better supervise him, and also challenged the strength of the Crown’s identification evidence.

The court found no error in principle and concluded the change regarding the surety was not material, particularly in light of the accused’s extensive criminal record and repeated breaches of court orders.

Even if the change were material, detention remained justified due to the high likelihood of reoffending and the serious nature of the alleged armed robberies.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault and breach of recognizance, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility analysis required by R. v. W.(D.).

The appellate court held the trial judge improperly treated the case as a credibility contest between the complainant and the accused, rather than applying the full W.(D.) framework.

The reasons relied heavily on the complainant’s demeanour and failed to explain how the evidence as a whole established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in light of inconclusive DNA evidence and other contradictory facts.

The court concluded this constituted a palpable and overriding error of law.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with sexual assault alleged to have occurred in the mid‑1980s, criminal harassment in 2011, and two breaches of recognizance conditions.

The court found that the complainant’s evidence regarding a single instance of non‑consensual intercourse was undermined by inconsistencies, omissions in prior statements, and surrounding circumstances of a long‑term consensual relationship that continued for years thereafter.

The Crown also failed to prove the elements of criminal harassment, including repeated communications and a reasonable fear for safety, particularly given ongoing intermittent contact initiated by the complainant and her family.

Evidence relating to the alleged breaches of recognizance did not establish the required mens rea for the offences.

All charges were dismissed.