Rylie Wills

The accused was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and was detained in a secure forensic unit.

At an early review hearing, the hospital recommended a conditional discharge, while the Attorney-General sought continued detention.

The Ontario Review Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, specifically a risk of psychological harm.

However, relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused's risk is low and manageable in the community with medication compliance, the Board concluded that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

This is a first-stage ruling on a habeas corpus application brought by Andre Ducic, who asserts that his recent confinement at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre was inconsistent with a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board.

The court finds that there is sufficient concern to warrant a full inquiry into the lawfulness of Mr. Ducic’s imprisonment and orders the matter to proceed to the second stage, requiring the responsible authorities to explain the legal basis for his detention.

Following a finding of not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, the Ontario Review Board held an initial hearing to determine the appropriate disposition for the accused.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from active psychosis and delusional beliefs, poses a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention order with the possibility of supervised accommodation in the community, along with conditions prohibiting contact with the victim and the possession of weapons.

The Board declined to impose substance use conditions as there was no history of problematic use.

The applicant, charged with numerous sexual offences involving child complainants, brought a motion for directions to determine whether police notes and a psychotherapist's statement, which contained information from therapy sessions, constituted Stinchcombe disclosure or were subject to the Mills regime under the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued for the Mills regime.

The court found that the psychotherapist's statement, despite being in police possession, retained its character as a "record" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code due to the complainant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the court ruled that the production of the statement is governed by the Mills regime, requiring the applicant to follow that specific application process.