S. Malik

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a severe polysubstance use disorder, sought a conditional discharge to reside with his mother.

The Hospital and the Attorney General argued for a continued detention disposition.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to residual symptoms, limited insight, and a lack of testing in the community.

The Board concluded that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate to manage the risk of decompensation and ensure public safety.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, sought to reduce his reporting requirements.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to fluctuating symptoms, limited insight, and a history of rapid decompensation.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge, including the requirement to report to the hospital at least once per week, to ensure public safety and meet the accused's mental health needs.

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

The accused had been living in the community under a conditional discharge but recently experienced a resurgence of symptoms, including anxiety, paranoia, and a relapse into cannabis use.

All parties jointly submitted that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the conditional discharge should be maintained.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding a clear nexus between the accused's mental illness, substance use, and the risk of violent re-offending, and ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge to ensure public safety and support the accused's reintegration.

The hospital requested an early hearing to consider expanding the privileges of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and manslaughter.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, had demonstrated sustained clinical stability and compliance with a new long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.

The Ontario Review Board found that while the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety, his progress warranted a gradual expansion of privileges, including escorted access to the community, to support his reintegration.

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

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for offences including uttering death threats, assault, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizoaffective disorder, substance use disorder, lack of insight, and non-compliance with oral medications.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, concluding that an Absolute or Conditional Discharge would not adequately manage the risk of psychiatric decompensation and potential violence.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for four counts of attempted murder and assault.

The accused's diagnoses include schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms and the risk of substance use relapse.

The Board ordered the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with community living privileges.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The accused has treatment-resistant schizophrenia and a major neurocognitive disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to the brittle nature of his illness and limited insight.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention disposition at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, but removed the abstinence and urine drug screening conditions and reduced the minimum reporting frequency, given his stability and lack of substance use history.

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

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused all agreed that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and that a continuation of the Detention Order was necessary and appropriate.

The Board accepted the joint position, noting the accused's progress and compliance with treatment, and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order on a General Forensic Unit with provisions for travel passes.

The decision concerns a mortgage fraud prosecution.

The accused, Ananthie Alex, was charged with conspiracy to utter forged documents and with knowingly making a false statement in writing to obtain credit.

The court found that Alex conspired with Hans Lauro to obtain a mortgage in the name of Lauro’s mother using falsified income information, but acquitted her on the count of knowingly making a false statement in writing, citing insufficient evidence that a false document was actually submitted to the lender.

The judgment provides a detailed review of the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule and the Carter test for admissibility of evidence in conspiracy cases.

The defendants, Basil Dixon and Nathan Brown, were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine following a large-scale police investigation ("Project Southam").

The trial, heard by a judge alone, relied heavily on intercepted communications and surveillance.

The court found that voice identification evidence from a detective constable was unreliable due to limited exposure and lack of formal training.

However, based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepts and surveillance footage, the court identified Dixon as "B" and Brown as "R" in the communications.

Applying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon conspired to import cocaine from Guyana (Count One) and that both Dixon and Brown conspired to import cocaine using a pilot (Count Three).

The accused, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, were tried on multiple counts including conspiracy to traffic, import, and produce cocaine, as well as participating in a criminal organization and possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and expert evidence decoding drug jargon.

Applying the Carter framework for co-conspirator hearsay, the court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine from Guyana.

Luangphasi was also found guilty of a separate conspiracy to import cocaine using a private plane.

Both accused were acquitted of the criminal organization charges due to a lack of proven structure and continuity, and acquitted of the carpet importation and production conspiracies.

Luangphasi was acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime.

The offenders were convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after police found nearly half a kilogram of cocaine and over $5,000 in cash in their vehicle.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought conditional sentences or 8 to 12 months imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for commercial drug trafficking and sentenced both offenders to 3.5 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after police discovered over 470 grams of cocaine and significant cash in their vehicle.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the location of the drugs, the large amount of cash in plain view, and the accused's behaviour during the police stop.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that both accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and money.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine and heroin, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and heroin.

During a police raid, the offender was found hiding in a bathtub, refused to comply with police directions, and was tasered, resulting in facial injuries.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the significant quantity of drugs and a lengthy criminal record, against mitigating factors such as mental health issues and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, charged with possession of controlled substances and assaulting a police officer, brought Charter motions alleging breaches of his s. 7 and s. 8 rights during the execution of a search warrant.

The court found that the police use of force, including a Conducted Energy Weapon, was reasonable given the applicant's resistance and the belief he might be armed, dismissing the s. 7 claim.

While the court found a s. 8 breach occurred when an officer searched the applicant's jacket for identification after a safety pat-down, the evidence of drugs was admitted under s. 24(2) as the officer acted in good faith to assist the applicant.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and one count of breaching a recognizance.

The court determined a fit global sentence was 4.5 years.

After applying Summers credit for time served, Downes credit for strict bail conditions, and a significant Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining sentence was two years less a day.

Finding that the offender had strong rehabilitative prospects and that further incarceration would be unduly harsh and counterproductive, the court ordered the remaining sentence to be served conditionally in the community.

Sentencing for historic sexual offences against children involving multiple victims, including sexual touching committed in positions of familial and trusted adult authority.

The court emphasized the gravity, inherent wrongfulness, and lasting harm of child sexual abuse, relying on recent Supreme Court guidance stressing denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

Although the judge expressed serious reservations about the leniency of a community-based sentence for offences of this nature, the court applied the public interest test governing joint submissions and accepted a joint proposal for a conditional sentence because rejection would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A concurrent conditional sentence of two years less one day was imposed, followed by three years' probation, together with DNA, lifetime SOIRA, and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including two counts of robbery, possession of a restricted firearm, and breach of recognizance.

The accused conceded guilt on the firearm possession and breach of recognizance charges.

The court dismissed the accused's application for a directed verdict on one robbery count, finding that the act of driving away while the victim held onto the vehicle constituted violence.

The court found the accused guilty of the second robbery based on eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence, but acquitted the accused of the first robbery due to reasonable doubt regarding his involvement.

Kafi Ali was charged with multiple firearms and drug-related offences.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 9 (arbitrary detention), seeking the exclusion of incriminating evidence under section 24(2).

The court found no Charter breaches, determining that the investigative detention was based on reasonable suspicion and was not racially motivated, and the subsequent arrest and search were lawful.

The defence conceded the elements of most offences if the Charter application failed, but disputed the charge of possession of property obtained by crime.

The court ultimately found Mr. Ali guilty of all charges, including possession of property obtained by crime, concluding that the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, charged with assault and sexual assault, brought an application for the production of third-party records, specifically police occurrence reports and officers' notes relating to previous complaints made by the complainant.

Following an initial ruling, the court reviewed the officers' notes to determine appropriate redactions.

The court ordered the release of the notes to the accused, subject to redactions protecting the identity and privacy of third parties and removing references to a separate youth record.