S. O’Brien

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder, had been residing in the community with his parents for over four years without incident.

Relying on the unanimous recommendation of the treatment team and the accused's sustained psychiatric stability, medication adherence, and strong family support, the Board concluded that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to public safety.

An absolute discharge was granted.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, was subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition allowing community living.

The hospital imposed two restrictions of liberty (readmissions to hospital) due to rule non-adherence, substance use, and a deteriorating mental state.

The Board reviewed the restrictions under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Applying the standard from R. v. M.L.C., the Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's evidence and found both restrictions were necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous interventions to manage the accused's risk of violence and ensure public safety.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assaulting a peace officer.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing substance use, lack of insight, and risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The Board ordered a Detention Disposition with a transfer to the Brébeuf program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, restricting travel passes to Southern Ontario to prioritize rehabilitation and community reintegration with family support.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a successful year in the community with no hospital readmissions, maintained abstinence, and complied with treatment.

The Board accepted the attending psychiatrist's uncontroverted evidence that the accused's mental state remains fragile and he would rapidly decompensate without forensic oversight.

The Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordered a loosened conditional discharge.

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

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had a history of treatment non-compliance and substance abuse.

The hospital recommended a continued detention disposition with an increased reporting frequency, while working towards a community housing placement.

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

The Board ordered a detention disposition with privileges up to living in the community, emphasizing the need for a cautious approach to his transition to less structured housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for an indecent act, criminal harassment, and uttering threats.

The accused sought a Conditional Discharge, while the hospital and Attorney General sought a continuation of the Detention Order.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his persistent schizophrenia, refractory psychotic symptoms, lack of insight, and history of noncompliance with treatment.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order remained the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to ensure public safety and allow for rapid readmission if necessary.

The Ontario Review Board held a Restriction of Liberties hearing after the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for several offences, was readmitted to the hospital following a relapse into methamphetamine use.

The hospital notified the Board of the significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberties.

Based on a joint submission and evidence from the attending psychiatrist, the Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive option available to manage the increased risk.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for arson, was subject to an annual review by the Ontario Review Board.

The accused sought an absolute discharge, arguing he was no longer a significant threat to public safety.

The hospital and the Attorney General sought a continuation of the detention order.

The Board found that the accused's ongoing substance use, particularly crack cocaine, acted as a destabilizer that increased his risk of psychiatric decompensation and violence.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board concluded the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the detention order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for sexual assault.

The accused has a complex psychiatric history, including schizoaffective disorder, an acquired brain injury, and a substance use disorder, alongside an extensive criminal record.

While the accused had a positive year with medication adherence and substance abstinence, the Board found he remains a significant threat to public safety due to his risk of decompensation and reoffending without forensic structure.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, allowing the hospital to manage his transition to appropriate community housing.

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

The hospital reported a significant restriction of liberty after the accused was placed in seclusion following an unprovoked assault on a co-patient.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, remains a significant threat to public safety due to escalating unpredictable physical aggression.

The Board upheld the restriction of liberty as necessary and appropriate, and ordered the accused transferred to a high-secure provincial forensic program, with reduced privileges pending the transfer.

Flora Sadik, previously found NCR for assault with a weapon, was subject to a mandatory annual review of her Detention Order by the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital and Crown recommended continuing the Detention Order, which the accused did not contest.

The Board accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience symptoms of psychosis, lacks insight into her illness, and would likely decompensate and pose a significant threat to public safety if discharged.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order to ensure medication adherence and facilitate a highly supervised transition to community living.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board of a restriction of liberty after the accused, who was detained at the hospital, became agitated and punched a nurse in the face.

The accused was placed in seclusion and restraints, and his privileges were cancelled.

A hearing was held pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, appropriate, and the least restrictive measure available in the circumstances.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a hearing to review the restriction of liberty imposed on the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for forcible entry and is subject to a detention disposition.

The accused was readmitted to the hospital after a decline in community functioning, non-attendance at programming, and his substitute decision-maker's refusal to consent to an optimized medication schedule.

The Board found that both the initial and ongoing restrictions of liberty were necessary, appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive interventions available to manage the accused's risk to the public and return him to his baseline mental state.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for three counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board unanimously found that the accused, who suffers from bipolar disorder, represents a significant threat to public safety, particularly when driving in a manic state.

By a 3-2 majority, the Board ordered a Detention Order with conditions, including a strict driving prohibition, prioritizing public safety over the accused's employment and family access needs.

The dissenting members would have omitted the driving prohibition, finding it unnecessary to manage the risk.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, was discharged to the community but readmitted to the hospital after breaching his community plan, including substance use and failing to attend appointments.

The hospital notified the Ontario Review Board of the restriction of liberty.

The Board held a hearing and found that the significant increase in the restriction of the accused's liberty was necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure to manage his risk to public safety.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for robbery.

The hospital and the Attorney General proposed continuing the current disposition, which detained the accused at the hospital with privileges up to living in the community.

The accused requested a modification to allow indirectly supervised travel passes to Nova Scotia.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused lacked the organization to travel alone, noting a recent elopement and cannabis use.

Finding that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety, the Board ordered the continuation of the disposition without change.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences due to schizophrenia.

The parties jointly submitted that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but has made significant progress, including medication compliance, abstinence from substances, and vocational achievements.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, with conditions including a consent to treatment.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for various offences.

The accused was living in the community under a conditional discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge but removing the absolute prohibition on substance use to test the accused's internal motivation to abstain, as he approaches an absolute discharge.

The Board agreed, finding that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety without forensic support, removing the abstention clause while maintaining testing was appropriate to measure his commitment to avoiding substances.

The conditional discharge was continued with the abstention clause removed.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and other offences.

The accused sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, the removal of a cannabis prohibition from his disposition.

The hospital and Crown sought continued detention.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused lacks insight, rejects his schizophrenia diagnosis, and would abandon treatment and abuse substances if discharged, the Board found he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered continued detention with the existing conditions, including the cannabis prohibition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, sought an absolute discharge.

The hospital and Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge but removing substance prohibition clauses.

Relying on psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to experience fluctuating delusions, lacks insight, and would likely disengage from treatment if discharged absolutely, the Board found he remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a continued conditional discharge with the removal of the substance prohibition and Young clauses.