Renna Weinberg

The accused pled guilty to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images under s. 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

He had uploaded videos of a former intimate partner to a public pornography website, where they remained for a year.

The accused had prior convictions involving former intimate partners and demonstrated a lack of insight.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court rejected a conditional sentence, instead imposing a 10-month jail term followed by 2 years of probation, and a 10-year SOIRA order.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and mischief, was subject to an annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and the Crown recommended the continuation of the existing detention disposition, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight, recent re-emergence of psychotic symptoms, and the risk of unsafe behaviour during decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition without changes.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The hospital and the accused requested that community living within the GTA be added to his privileges, which the Crown opposed.

The Board noted the accused's positive progress, adherence to treatment, and lack of aggression.

The Board granted the addition of a community living privilege in supportive housing, along with indirectly supervised privileges in the community, to allow for careful reintegration and assessment of independent living skills.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, resides in a high-support community residence under a detention order.

Based on a joint submission and uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused remains significantly psychotic, has impaired insight, and recently engaged in a minor physical altercation, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing detention disposition without changes.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had been residing in a 24-hour high support community placement and demonstrated sustained psychiatric stability.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, as a relapse in mental illness or substance use would likely lead to violent re-offending.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order to ensure ongoing support and supervision.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for second-degree murder after stabbing a friend 22 times while psychotic and paranoid.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and Crown recommended a detention order with a range of privileges and conditions, including a weapons ban and substance prohibitions.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's strong insight, medication compliance, and two years of being asymptomatic, while adding non-contact and non-attendance clauses.

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

The index offence involved a severe, unprovoked stabbing committed while the accused was experiencing substance-induced psychosis.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his severe, long-standing substance use disorder and vulnerability to psychosis if he relapses.

However, noting his complete remission, full-time employment, and positive community reintegration, the Board agreed with the joint submission and expert evidence that a conditional discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public.

The accused, previously found NCR for violent offences including intimate partner violence, was subject to an annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, supported by the treating psychiatrist who opined the accused's schizophrenia was in remission.

The Attorney General opposed.

The Board rejected the hospital's recommendation, finding that the accused's history of serial violence, superficial insight, and recent alcohol use in breach of his disposition demonstrated he remained a significant threat to public safety.

A conditional discharge was ordered.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for two counts of attempted murder.

The accused, who suffers from Bipolar 1 disorder, sought an absolute discharge, citing 10 months of medication compliance and stability in the community.

The hospital and the Crown recommended continuing the conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the hospital psychiatrist's evidence that the accused lacks insight into his illness and remains a significant threat to public safety.

The conditional discharge was continued.

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

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia and history of severe violence when unmedicated.

However, noting his stability, medication compliance, and support in the community, the Board concluded that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage his risk.

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

The accused had been found not criminally responsible for robbery in 2008 and suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

All parties agreed that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and that the conditional discharge should continue.

The Board accepted the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused requires ongoing supervision and support due to fluctuating insight and a recent reduction in medication.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences and was detained at a psychiatric hospital.

Following a successful appeal of his detention order, the Ontario Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the Ontario Review Board for a new hearing.

The Board found that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia and housing instability, his risk could be adequately managed in the community.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with strict terms, including a consent to treatment condition and a Young clause requiring him to attend the hospital for assessment if requested.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial on a charge of assault.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and expressive aphasia following a stroke.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused lacks the cognitive capacity to understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel, and is likely permanently unfit.

The Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to residual psychosis and a history of medication non-compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for the abduction of a person under 14 years of age.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a continued detention order, and the accused's counsel agreed that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation and ordered the accused to be detained in a General Forensic Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, noting her progress toward community living.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and Crown recommended maintaining the current detention order, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board accepted psychiatric evidence that the accused lacks insight, has a history of cannabis-induced decompensation, and would pose a significant threat to public safety without supervision.

The Board denied the absolute discharge and found a conditional discharge unfeasible due to a lack of community supports, ordering the continuation of the detention order.

The applicant sought an exemption from a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order made by the Ontario Court of Justice on October 19, 2023, pursuant to section 490.04 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding that since the original SOIRA order was made by the Ontario Court of Justice, the application for exemption must be brought in that court, not the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The accused, who was found NCR for assault in 1995, currently resides in the community in 24-hour high support housing.

The hospital and Crown recommended continuing the current detention order with reduced reporting requirements, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the hospital's expert evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his severe psychotic disorder, poor insight, and risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The Board concluded a conditional discharge was premature and ordered the continuation of the detention order with amended reporting requirements.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences, suffers from ultra-treatment resistant schizophrenia.

The treatment team recommended continuing the current detention order with community living privileges, citing the accused's residual psychotic symptoms, poor insight, and stated intention to discontinue medication and resume cannabis use if discharged.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his care continue under the terms of his current Disposition.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and robbery.

The Board found that the accused, who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and substance use disorders, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with a reduction in reporting requirements to not less than once every two weeks, in accordance with a joint submission.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, possession of proceeds of crime, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The charges arose from his role as CEO of a subsidiary company that contracted IT professionals for a bank project.

The contractors experienced delayed and unpaid invoices, which the Crown alleged the accused facilitated by lying about the reasons for the delays.

The court found that the accused reasonably relied on the parent company's CFO and operations team for financial matters and did not have actual knowledge of, nor was he wilfully blind to, the fraud perpetrated by the CFO.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.