Sarah Rosales Zelaya

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

The accused, who suffers from treatment-refractory schizoaffective disorder, declined to attend the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted hospital evidence that the accused continues to experience severe psychotic symptoms, exhibits aggressive behaviour, and lacks insight, the Board concluded that he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that his detention at the secure forensic unit continue on the same terms.

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, had a positive year but continued to experience breakthrough psychotic symptoms when stressed.

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

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretionary privileges, emphasizing the need for supervised housing and hospital approval of accommodations to manage risk in the community.

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 Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for breach of recognizance and criminal harassment.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder, had been detained at a hospital but was living in approved community housing.

Based on the evidence of his treating psychiatrist that his condition was stable and his risk could be managed in the community, the Board found that while he remained a significant threat to public safety, a conditional discharge with a consent to treatment clause was the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The index offences involved violent, unprovoked attacks on hospital staff while the accused was experiencing psychosis.

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

The Board ordered a detention order with privileges up to and including indirectly supervised community passes, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder, continued to refuse mood-stabilizing medication and lacked insight into his mental illness.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that a Conditional Discharge was inappropriate and ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order to ensure adequate supervision and the ability to promptly readmit the accused if his mental state decompensated in the community.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and weapons offences.

The accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, has been living in the community in supported housing and has been compliant with his medication under supervision.

However, he lacks insight into his illness and has stated he would discontinue medication if no longer under the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board accepted expert evidence that discontinuation of medication would likely lead to an exacerbation of psychotic symptoms and an increased risk of violence.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but concluded his risk could be safely managed under a less restrictive conditional discharge, subject to terms including a consent to treatment condition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel.

The treatment team recommended continuing the existing Detention Order with an increased reporting requirement to once weekly, citing the accused's limited insight, recent withdrawal from programming, and the need for close monitoring during his upcoming transition to community living.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the recommended weekly reporting requirement.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing and a Restriction of Liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences, including assault and criminal harassment.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, had been readmitted to the hospital due to a severe manic episode despite adherence to medication.

The Board found the Restriction of Liberty was justified and ordered that the current Disposition of a Detention Order be maintained, with the modification that reporting be increased to once a week.

The Ontario Review Board held an early hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.

The hospital requested a transfer of the accused to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences due to resource limitations in supervising him in the Durham Region.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, primarily due to the risk of relapse into cannabis use and subsequent psychosis.

The Board ordered the transfer to Ontario Shores and continued the detention order with community living privileges in the Durham Region.

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

The hospital and Crown supported continuing the current disposition, which included residing in 24-hour supervised accommodation, and the accused's counsel agreed, conceding significant threat.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's limited behavioural progress and ongoing plans to find community housing, and ordered a continued Detention Order.

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

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly submitted that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and should remain subject to a Detention Order at the General Forensic Unit.

The Board accepted the joint submission, noting the accused's progress with medication but highlighting the need for further investigation into his psychopathy score and sexually inappropriate behaviours.

The Detention Order was maintained.

The appellant, Douglas Naus, appealed an order confirming a Consent and Capacity Board decision that he was incapable of consenting to treatment and subject to a community treatment order (CTO) requiring antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal from the incapacity finding was moot, but exercised its discretion to decide the CTO issue, holding that the Board and appeal judge erred in interpreting the statutory preconditions for a CTO.

The Court held that the Mental Health Act requires successful treatment to have occurred during a prior hospitalization, not the current one, before a CTO can be issued.

The CTO was quashed.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for two charges of assault.

The accused's attending psychiatrist testified that the accused's major mental illness is in full remission, he is compliant with treatment, and he has successfully resided in the community for several years without incident.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and mischief, suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and severe substance use disorders.

The Board accepted the expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order without changes.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming a physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The court held that the applicable standard of review was palpable and overriding error for the challenged application of the governing legal test, and found that the Board properly distinguished disagreement with diagnosis from inability to appreciate the manifestations of a mental condition.

The court rejected submissions that the Board had engaged in a best interests analysis, had acted unfairly, or had overlooked concerns about side effects and fertility.

The appeal was dismissed and no costs were ordered.

L.L. appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board that found him incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.

The Board had determined that L.L. met the criteria for involuntary detention and lacked the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision about treatment with antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medications, primarily due to a mental disorder (likely bipolar I with psychotic elements).

The Superior Court dismissed L.L.'s appeal, upholding the Board's finding of incapacity and its procedural fairness.

The court also addressed the admission of fresh evidence and the Board's decision not to appoint amicus curiae, finding no error in either.