Sayer Scott Down

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on various sexual assault and related charges.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains permanently unfit to stand trial due to a moderate intellectual disability and pedophilic disorder.

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

The detention order was continued without any provision for indirectly supervised community passes.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for mischief, animal cruelty, and break and enter.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been detained at a secure forensic unit but was living in the community.

Following a voluntary hospital admission to transition to Clozapine, his mental health and insight significantly improved.

The Board found that while the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, he can be safely managed in the community.

A conditional discharge was ordered.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for prowling by night, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and breaking and entering.

The accused has diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorders.

The Board accepted the expert psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to lack insight into his mental illness, continues to use illicit substances, and poses a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continuation of the detention order with the same terms and conditions, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect the public.

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

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

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

A Detention Order was continued with the same terms as the previous disposition.

Two Indigenous men from Pikangikum First Nation were sentenced following their guilty pleas to charges arising from a riot at the police detachment on June 27, 2015.

The riot began as a peaceful protest over an arrest involving tasering but escalated into violence, with the accused breaking into the detachment and attempting to breach the barracks where officers had retreated.

The court imposed conditional sentences with probation, crediting time served and emphasizing reconciliation and Gladue principles, while acknowledging the systemic social crisis affecting the community.

The defendant corporation was charged with six counts of operating commercial vehicles over the allowable weight during freeze-up periods under section 119(4) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt using weigh scale records from the Weyerhaeuser mill.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it took reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, holding that while the defendant implemented various measures (air gauges, driver training, a 105% target weight), these were insufficient given the known limitations of air gauges and the availability of alternative scales for verification.

The defendant was sentenced to minimum fines of $100 per count with six months to pay.

The respondent company was convicted of three offences under Section 119(4) of the Highway Traffic Act for operating overweight vehicles during freeze-up.

The company appealed the convictions while the Crown appealed the sentence.

The court upheld all convictions, finding no error in law by the trial justice.

However, the court found that the trial justice erred in suspending the passing of sentence based on unsubstantiated submissions regarding potential bankruptcy.

The court imposed the minimum fine of $100 plus $20 costs on each charge for a total of $360, with ninety days to pay.