Piet de Jong

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault with a weapon and theft under $5,000.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the Board considered psychiatric evidence indicating the accused suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders, with ongoing psychotic symptoms and crystalized delusions.

Applying the test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board concluded the accused remained unfit to stand trial as he lacked a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and could not meaningfully communicate with counsel.

The Board found the accused posed a significant threat to public safety and ordered his detention at the hospital, adopting the recommended conditions as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, with minor modifications to driving and reporting requirements.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for break and enter.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, had been living in the community but was readmitted to the hospital due to environmental aggression and delusions.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing delusions, lack of insight, and risk of medication non-compliance.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention disposition, finding that a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for arson endangering human life.

The accused suffers from major mental illness, recently diagnosed as Dissociative Identity Disorder, and has a history of substance abuse and severe childhood trauma.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, hallucinations, and a recent relapse into substance use while in hospital.

A detention disposition was ordered as necessary and appropriate to manage her risk while she engages in the early phases of psychotherapy.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of sexual assault.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder, unspecified paraphilic disorder, and severe amphetamine use disorder.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, as he continues to experience significant psychotic symptoms and lacks a reality-based understanding of his legal situation.

The Board also concluded that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his relentless sexually inappropriate behaviour and risk of aggression.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the high secure forensic program without community access.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine whether the accused, who had previously been found unfit to stand trial on assault charges, remained unfit.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence of his treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused's mental health had significantly improved and he was now fit to stand trial.

The Board directed his return to court and declined to make an order under section 672.49 of the Criminal Code to detain him in the hospital pending his return, finding no reasonable grounds to believe he would become unfit in a correctional facility.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which confirmed a community treatment order issued by the respondent physician.

The appellant argued that the order was invalid because a copy was not provided to the hospital's officer in charge as required by the Mental Health Act.

The Board assumed a procedural breach had occurred but declined to revoke the order because the statutory criteria were otherwise met and the appellant suffered no prejudice.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's exercise of its discretion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant, a former employee, in contempt of an interlocutory injunction prohibiting him from soliciting clients or disclosing confidential information.

The plaintiff relied on affidavits containing hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's alleged solicitation attempts.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, hearsay evidence is inadmissible on a contentious point in a contempt motion.

The plaintiff failed to meet the strict burden of proving contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a successful motion for injunctive relief, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court reviewed the written submissions and awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $7,556.91, inclusive of HST and disbursements, which included costs for a prior attendance.