Russell Wayne Browne

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible, appealed a Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention at a secure forensic psychiatric unit.

The appellant argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and that the detention order was not the least onerous disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence from a psychological risk assessment and the treating psychiatrist, which indicated a continued moderate-to-high risk of violent recidivism and a need for a gradual transition into the community.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences including discharging an air pistol at a victim, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a forensic psychiatry program.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision was reasonable, noting the seriousness and recency of the index offences, the appellant's limited insight into his illness, ongoing concerns about substance use and impulsivity, and the lack of suitable community accommodation.

The appeal was dismissed, though the court commended the appellant's significant progress.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Pierre Dartiguenave from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Crown requested dismissal on the basis that Mr. Dartiguenave was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board, and the appellant could not be located.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention order at a psychiatric facility.

The appellant argued that the Board's decision to deny him a conditional discharge was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the Board's decision was well-supported by evidence of the appellant's decompensation, untreated mental illness, and history of absconding from his treatment team.

Accordingly, the Court found no error in the Board's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, George Bennett, appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a finding of incapacity by the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his ability to make treatment decisions about antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erroneously preferred historical evidence over current evidence and erred in its assessment of his ability to appreciate the benefits of the medication.

The Court of Appeal, stepping into the shoes of the Superior Court, dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's decision.

The court affirmed that historical medical evidence can properly support an assessment of current capacity and that the Board was entitled to make credibility findings and prefer expert evidence.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding her incapacity to consent to treatment with anti-psychotic medication and mood stabilizers.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the Board.

The court affirmed the Board's finding that the appellant failed the second branch of the capacity test, being unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of consenting or not consenting to treatment, and that the benefits and consequences of treatment were adequately explained.

The appellant, found unfit to stand trial by the Ontario Court of Justice, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) subsequent disposition finding him unfit and ordering his detention.

The Court of Appeal confirmed its jurisdiction to hear appeals from ORB findings of unfitness that result in a disposition, distinguishing them from findings of fitness which do not.

On the merits, the court found the ORB's decision to be reasonable, giving appropriate weight to psychiatric assessments and counsel's representations regarding the appellant's ability to instruct counsel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was detained under an Ontario Review Board order following a finding of not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact in applying the test for capacity under s. 4(1) of the Health Care Consent Act.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in the Board's application of the law or its assessment of the evidence, including its credibility findings, and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent was found not criminally responsible in 2008 and held under detention orders until the Ontario Review Board granted a conditional discharge in 2019.

The hospital appealed, supported by the Crown, arguing the Board's majority reasons failed to explain how public safety would be protected given the respondent's history of rapid decompensation and recent involuntary admissions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding the Board's reasons inadequate to justify the disposition.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated July 18, 2018, regarding the detention of an individual with a major mental illness.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was necessary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's application of the legal test for assessing ongoing risk or in its determination that detention was the appropriate disposition given the appellant's mental condition, history of non-compliance with medication, substance abuse, and prior violent conduct.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2000 for assault and uttering threats appealed his disposition of detention in a general forensic unit with community living privileges at the discretion of the hospital.

The appellant argued the Board's finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's majority decision, finding the disposition reasonable based on the appellant's persistent pattern of threatening behaviour, impulsivity, inability to control anger, and the structured environment's role in preventing escalation to physical violence.

Olga Chubarev appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found her incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medications and confirmed the renewal of a Community Treatment Order.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable, not infected by factual error, and that the Board reasonably applied the law to the facts.

The court affirmed the Board's conclusion that the appellant was unable to appreciate the benefits of treatment and thus could not weigh them against the risks.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition finding him to constitute a significant threat to public safety and ordering his continued detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable based on the appellant's mental health condition (Bipolar Affective Disorder with psychotic symptoms), history of violent offences involving weapons, documented noncompliance with medication, substance abuse issues, and concerning conduct while detained including the discovery of "to do" lists containing weapons.

The court rejected arguments that a conditional discharge should have been considered, noting the appellant had only recently begun substance abuse programming.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition order that continued the detention of an NCRMD accused with a term permitting community living in approved accommodation.

The appellant challenged both the Board's finding that she remained a significant threat to public safety and the appropriateness of the detention order as opposed to a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but criticized the Board's brevity in addressing key issues, particularly the lack of rigorous analysis regarding the significant threat finding and the failure to explain why detention was necessary and appropriate rather than a conditional discharge.

The court noted that while the Board's decision was not unreasonable on the evidence, it failed to meet standards of transparency and intelligibility in its reasoning.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment for schizoaffective disorder.

The appellant argued the Board's decision was unreasonable and raised procedural fairness issues regarding the hearing.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant was unable to recognize the manifestations of his illness and could not apply relevant information to his own circumstances to weigh the risks and benefits of treatment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his attending physician's finding that he lacked capacity to consent to psychiatric treatment.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness and that the finding of incapacity was unreasonable.

The Superior Court of Justice found no procedural unfairness but concluded the Board's decision on capacity was unreasonable.

The court noted a lack of evidence that the physician had actually explained the proposed treatment, its consequences, or alternatives to the appellant, which is a prerequisite to finding an inability to appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that confirmed his incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The Board found that while the appellant understood relevant information, he was unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his decision or lack thereof, primarily due to his denial of his psychiatric illness.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Board's electronic hearing, no misconstruction of the statutory test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, and that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence.

The appellant physician appealed a Superior Court order that set aside a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding the respondent incapable of consenting to medical treatment.

The Superior Court had ordered a new hearing because the respondent's current attending physician did not testify before the Board.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge erred by deciding the case on a procedural fairness issue raised for the first time on appeal.

The Court of Appeal further found that the Board's original decision was reasonable and supported by the record, and restored the Board's finding of incapacity.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence imposed following convictions for mischief and two counts of breach of probation arising from conduct at a medical clinic.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission of time served and instead imposed an additional custodial sentence resulting in an effective six‑month term of imprisonment.

The appellate court held that joint submissions on sentence are entitled to significant deference and should only be rejected where the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found the sentencing judge erred in principle by rejecting the joint submission without adequate justification and by imposing a sentence that was demonstrably unfit and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The appeal was allowed and the custodial sentence was reduced to time served, with the probation order remaining in force.