Ryan Mushlian

The offender was found guilty by a jury of theft under $5000 after taking the complainant's phone as collateral for an unpaid loan.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a conditional discharge was appropriate, noting the offender's lack of a prior record, his employment, and the severe immigration consequences a conviction would entail.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding that a conditional discharge was in the offender's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault, robbery, and sexual interference.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had an unauthorized leave of absence during the reporting year and exhibited periods of mutism, though he generally complied with hospital rules and medication.

Based on uncontested psychiatric evidence and a joint submission, the Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to limited insight and risk of decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of his Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board held an early annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and breach of recognizance.

The accused, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder, had been living in the community on a conditional discharge but experienced a severe decompensation following the death of his mentor.

This led to involuntary hospitalization, psychotic symptoms, and assaultive behaviour towards peers and staff.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The conditional discharge was rescinded and replaced with a detention order, with conditions allowing for future community living once his mental state stabilizes.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was found unfit to stand trial in 2009 on charges of assault and weapons offences.

The Board determined that the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial due to an intellectual disability and schizophrenia.

Finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Board ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge, emphasizing the necessity of 24-hour supervised housing to manage his risk of violence.

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

The accused, diagnosed with major depressive disorder with psychotic features, has been compliant with treatment but faces barriers to community transition due to his unresolved immigration status.

The Board found that he continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with privileges including community living.

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

The accused sought an absolute discharge, while the hospital and Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of medication non-compliance, substance use, and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with existing conditions, including residence at a supportive housing facility.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and related offences.

The accused has been residing in the community under a conditional discharge and has made positive progress, including medication compliance and abstaining from substance use.

However, due to her history of treatment-resistant psychosis, substance use, and vulnerability to stressors, the Board found she continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with an updated residential address to support her transition to more independent living.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, experienced a recent exacerbation of psychotic symptoms and remains treatment resistant.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

On joint submission, the Board ordered the continuation of her detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, with a modification to her privileges allowing the person in charge to permit travel both inside and outside of Canada.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the accused's disposition.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences due to schizophrenia.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties and the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, particularly due to his history of absconding and substance use which precipitates psychosis.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention disposition at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and weapons offences, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorders.

The majority of the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, citing his recent unauthorized leave of absence, substance use, and resulting decompensation.

The Board ordered his continued detention at the hospital with amended conditions, including restoring a prohibition against cannabis use.

A dissenting member would have granted an absolute discharge, finding the risk of serious harm was not established.

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

The accused suffers from treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder.

The treatment team testified that the accused remains a significant risk to the public, particularly in the context of substance use or medication non-compliance.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a detention order with discretionary privileges, including community living in approved accommodation.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The hospital and the Attorney General submitted that there should be no change to the current detention order, while the accused requested a conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, noting his fragile mental status, ongoing psychotic symptoms exacerbated by cannabis use, and need for close supervision.

The Board ordered that the accused's care continue under the same terms as his current disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, sought a conditional discharge.

The hospital and Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention order with discretionary privileges.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing substance use and fluctuating insight, and that a detention order remains necessary to manage his risks in the community.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault and aggravated assault, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual review of his conditional discharge.

The accused requested an absolute discharge, while the hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current disposition to monitor his mental stability following a recent reduction in his antipsychotic medication.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his care continue under the same terms as his current conditional discharge.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, resides in the community and has made progress in medication adherence with significant support.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to limited insight and risk of relapse.

The current disposition discharging the accused on conditions was maintained.

The defendant, M.C., was sentenced for sexual offences against an 11-year-old victim (TS), where he abused a position of trust.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 2 years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 1 year.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, which mandates increased sentences for child sexual offences and emphasizes denunciation and deterrence, the court rejected a conditional sentence.

M.C. was sentenced to 15 months incarceration, along with a 3-year probation order, DNA order, 10-year s. 161 order, 20-year SOIRA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual invitation against a 13-year-old complainant who was a friend of his daughter.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony, while the defence presented evidence from the accused, his family, and a neighbour to suggest he had no opportunity to commit the offences.

The court applied the W(D) framework, found the complainant entirely credible, and rejected the defence evidence as contrived and unreliable.

The court concluded the accused had the opportunity to commit the offences and found him guilty on all counts.

The offender, a massage therapist, was found guilty of sexually assaulting a client during a therapeutic massage.

The court considered the Crown's request for a 9-12 month jail term and the defence's request for a conditional sentence or 2 months intermittent incarceration.

Aggravating factors included a significant breach of trust and the victim's vulnerability.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and the non-violent nature of the assault.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence for healthcare professionals who abuse trust.

The offender was sentenced to 90 days intermittent custody, 12 months probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

The applicant brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 24(2) to exclude ammunition discovered during a police search of his residence.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked reasonable grounds to believe ammunition would be found.

The court dismissed the application, finding the ITO met the low threshold for the 'will afford evidence' requirement and that it was a reasonable inference the applicant had additional ammunition stored at his nearby residence after accidentally shooting himself with a firearm during a robbery.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, alleging breaches of his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms sections 7, 10(b), and 12.

The court found that police officers assaulted the applicant while he was vulnerable in a hospital bed, handcuffed, and suffering from a gunshot wound, and that his right to counsel without delay was violated.

The court accepted the applicant's evidence over the officers' and found the police conduct to be offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency.

Applying the R. v. Babo test for abuse of process, the court determined that a stay of proceedings was the appropriate remedy, as no alternative remedy could adequately disassociate the justice system from such egregious misconduct.