Shannon Leigh Curry

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

The primary issue was whether the accused should be transferred to another institution under Rule 13.

Based on evidence of the accused's cognitive improvements and medication compliance, and with the agreement of all parties, the Board ordered a transfer to St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton while maintaining the current disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault and other offences, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and Crown recommended maintaining the current detention disposition, while the accused sought a conditional discharge with community living.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, noting his lack of insight, ongoing delusions, and refusal to engage in substance abuse therapy.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was not realistic and ordered that the accused remain detained in a hospital setting.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to determine the fitness of the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of assault and failure to comply with a probation order.

The accused suffers from severe schizophrenia and has a history of extreme violence.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused remains psychotic, paranoid, and unfit to stand trial, as his condition would impair his ability to instruct counsel and participate in a trial.

The Board ordered continued detention at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, arson, aggravated assault, and mischief.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, sought a transfer to a less secure facility.

The hospital and the Attorney General opposed the transfer, citing the accused's refusal of treatment, lack of insight, and recent threatening behaviour.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital's doctor, finding that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and was not ready for a transfer.

A detention disposition at the high secure facility was ordered.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, arson, aggravated assault, and mischief.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, had recently been transferred back to a high-secure unit after refusing medication and exhibiting threatening behaviour.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition at the maximum-secure forensic hospital, denying the accused's request for a transfer to a less secure facility.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an accused who had been found not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The accused was placed in seclusion after attempting to assault a staff member at the psychiatric hospital.

The Board applied the Campbell framework and found that the accused's liberty norm was level C2 privileges, and the seclusion represented a significant increase in restriction.

The Board concluded that the restriction was necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of co-patients and staff, and that the hospital had imposed the least restrictive conditions possible by providing regular seclusion relief and a step-wise de-restraint process.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible and permitted to live in the community, was returned to detention in hospital after testing positive for prohibited substances.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberty hearing to review the hospital's decision.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused's substance use caused significant deterioration and increased risk.

The Board found that the return to hospital was warranted and was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to manage the risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board convened an early hearing to review the Disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had a history of non-compliance and ULOAs but recently showed stabilization and appropriate use of passes.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties and the attending psychiatrist, finding that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, his risk can be managed.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the addition of a discretionary privilege to live in supervised community housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty of an NCR accused who was placed in seclusion at a mental health facility.

The accused's mental state had rapidly deteriorated due to medication changes and non-compliance, leading to agitation and aggressive behaviour.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that seclusion was necessary to manage the high risk of unpredictable physical violence.

The Board concluded that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary for public safety, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available.

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

The hospital and the Attorney General submitted that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, which the accused did not contest.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence that the accused's physical health has declined and he requires a high level of support, but continues to display unpredictable aggression.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Order while the hospital searches for an appropriate long-term care placement.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering threats and breaching a recognizance.

The Hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention disposition at a high secure forensic facility, citing the accused's ongoing aggressive and sexually inappropriate behaviours.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the forensic fellow that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and requires the structure of a high secure setting.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition with the existing privileges and conditions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including uttering threats and assaulting a peace officer.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorder.

Based on the psychiatric evidence, the Board concluded that the accused remains unfit to stand trial, is likely permanently unfit, and continues to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The current Disposition and its terms were maintained.

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

The accused has treatment-resistant schizophrenia and a history of medication noncompliance and unprovoked violence.

The attending psychiatrist testified that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and requires ongoing detention in a highly supportive hospital environment.

The Board accepted this evidence, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat, and maintained the Detention Order.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and forcible confinement.

The accused, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, had recently exhibited aggressive behaviour, persistent persecutory delusions, and medication non-compliance.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's stability remains fragile and heavily reliant on close supervision.

The Board concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered that his detention at the high secure provincial forensic program remain in place without transfer to a less secure facility.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on multiple charges, including assaulting a peace officer.

The hospital and Crown submitted that the accused remained unfit and should continue to be detained at a maximum secure facility, citing recent unprovoked assaults on staff and co-patients driven by command hallucinations.

The Board accepted the evidence, finding the accused lacked a consistent grasp of the legal process and the ability to communicate effectively with counsel.

The accused was ordered to remain detained at the hospital with slightly amended privileges.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, underwent his annual review before the Ontario Review Board.

He suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and has been in continuous seclusion due to violent assaults on hospital staff driven by command hallucinations.

The Board accepted the treating psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continuation of his current detention disposition at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, while recommending the hospital explore alternative treatments such as ECT and investigate potential intellectual deficits from early head injuries.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for dangerous driving causing death and failure to stop after an accident.

At her initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her history of schizophreniform disorder and lack of insight into potential relapse.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with conditions including a two-week reporting requirement, a firearms prohibition, and travel restrictions, but declined to impose a driving prohibition.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review a restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial and detained at a mental health hospital.

The accused was placed in seclusion for eight days after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behaviour towards staff.

Applying the Campbell framework, the Board found that the significant restriction of the accused's liberty was both necessary and appropriate from its initiation through to its termination to ensure the safety of staff and co-patients.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of non-capital murder and manslaughter.

The accused, who suffers from Major Neurocognitive Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder, did not attend the hearing.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and is at high risk for violent recidivism.

The Board ordered the renewal of the accused's current detention disposition at a high secure provincial forensic program.

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder for killing his father.

Prior to sentencing, the applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years violates sections 12 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that his long-standing mental disorders and substance-induced psychosis at the time of the offence reduced his moral blameworthiness, making the mandatory sentence grossly disproportionate and discriminatory.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application.

The court held that it was bound by the jury's verdict, which necessarily found that the applicant had the requisite specific intent for first degree murder, representing the highest level of moral culpability.

The court found no violation of section 12, as the sentence is not grossly disproportionate for an offender with such high moral blameworthiness.

The court also found no violation of section 15, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the mandatory minimum sentence disproportionately impacts persons with mental illness, noting that those who lack criminal responsibility or the requisite intent due to mental illness are not subject to the mandatory sentence.