Russell Wayne Browne

The 67-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material (CSAEM).

The police found 10 images and 23 videos of CSAEM on his devices.

Applying the child-centred approach from Friesen and the framework from Pike, the court weighed the aggravating factors, including the depiction of real children and the dissemination of material, against significant mitigating factors, such as the offender's age, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and low risk of reoffending.

The court concluded that an 18-month conditional sentence of imprisonment, followed by two years of probation, would adequately address the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to determine if the accused, who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and charged with aggravated assault, was fit to stand trial.

Relying on the expert evidence of the attending psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused's negative symptoms, including poverty of thought and lack of motivation, prevented him from making reality-based decisions.

The Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial and ordered the continuation of his detention disposition at the hospital as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage his risk to the public.

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 Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson.

The accused, diagnosed with delusional disorder, had recently transitioned to supported community living and was making positive progress.

However, he continued to have limited insight into his illness and residual delusional beliefs.

Applying the Winko test, the Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for weapons offences due to schizophrenia.

The accused had a history of medication non-compliance but showed recent progress after transitioning to long-acting injectable antipsychotics.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety if supervision is removed.

The Board ordered a continued Detention Disposition with expanded privileges to support a gradual transition to community living.

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 Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for firearms and threat offences.

The accused, diagnosed with bipolar disorder and cannabis use disorder, had been living in the community under a detention order.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused's pattern of decompensation is unknown and that he would likely not seek voluntary admission if his mental state deteriorated.

Finding that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, the Board maintained the detention order to ensure the treatment team's ability to admit him expeditiously if needed, while granting new privileges for out-of-province travel to visit family.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, was subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition allowing community living.

The hospital imposed two restrictions of liberty (readmissions to hospital) due to rule non-adherence, substance use, and a deteriorating mental state.

The Board reviewed the restrictions under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Applying the standard from R. v. M.L.C., the Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence and found both restrictions were necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous interventions to manage the accused's risk of violence and ensure public safety.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible and discharged to a community residence, failed to return to his residence after a hospital visit for a physical illness.

He was found in another city and returned to the forensic psychiatry program, where he was highly agitated and required seclusion and restraints.

The hospital held a restriction of liberty hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Review Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the return to hospital and ongoing detention were warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision consistent with public safety.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, was subject to an annual review of his detention disposition.

The Ontario Review Board heard evidence that he suffers from bipolar disorder and cannabis use disorder, and that his mental state remains fragile and prone to rapid decompensation when non-compliant with medication or using cannabis.

The Board found that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital, concluding that a conditional discharge would not adequately manage his risk.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and other offences.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and major depressive disorder.

The attending psychiatrist testified that while the accused's trajectory has been positive, he lacks insight and would likely discontinue medication without forensic supports, leading to a reemergence of psychotic symptoms and inappropriate behaviour.

The Board applied the Winko test and found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and breach of probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had successfully transitioned to community living but remained reliant on a strict medication regimen and extensive outpatient support.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely become medication non-adherent and decompensate without the structure of a Detention Order.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to its conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review two Restrictions of Liberty (ROL) imposed on the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The hospital restricted the accused's liberties after his mental status significantly deteriorated following a fall, leading to disorganization, paranoia, and aggressive behavior.

The Board found that both the March and April ROLs were warranted, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measures to stabilize the accused's mental health.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused suffers from a complex personality disorder and has a history of substance use.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to poor insight, risk of substance-induced psychosis, and ongoing need for monitoring.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order without change to its terms.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson and other offences.

The accused had been living in the community without readmission since 2021, demonstrating good insight into his schizoaffective disorder and substance use issues.

All parties, including the hospital and the Attorney General, jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board agreed and ordered an absolute discharge.

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 Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for arson.

The accused, diagnosed with delusional disorder, recently began receiving antipsychotic medication after exhausting appeals regarding his incapacity for treatment.

The Board accepted psychiatric evidence that the accused lacks insight into his illness and would likely discontinue medication if discharged, leading to decompensation and increased risk of violence.

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

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 Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberties after his hospital privileges were suspended.

The accused, who has delusional disorder, was administered long-acting antipsychotic medication against his will after his appeals regarding incapacity to consent to treatment were exhausted.

Due to his resulting agitation, aggression, and expressed desire to flee the country, the hospital suspended his level 3 privileges.

The Board found that the restriction of liberties was warranted given the risk of elopement and his aggressive behaviour, noting that privileges were restored once his condition stabilized.

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

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and has a history of medication non-compliance, continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a Detention Order as the least onerous and restrictive disposition, but rejected a joint submission to include an abstinence clause, finding no evidence of prior substance use.