Steve O’Brien

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for three counts of failing to stop after an accident, while simultaneously being convicted of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

At his initial Ontario Review Board hearing regarding the NCR findings, the hospital's forensic psychiatrist testified that the accused did not suffer from a major mental illness, lacked antisocial traits, and posed a very low risk of reoffending.

The Board accepted this evidence, finding that the accused did not meet the threshold of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Consequently, the Board ordered an absolute discharge in relation to the NCR offences.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the conditional discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a mild intellectual disability, sought an absolute discharge.

The Hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's limited insight, residual psychosis, and need for 24-hour support meant he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for second-degree murder after stabbing his cousin.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, history of cannabis use disorder, and the recent nature of his symptom management.

The Board ordered his detention at a forensic psychiatry program with strict conditions, including absolute abstinence from intoxicants and a graduated, highly supervised approach to community access privileges.

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

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from a psychotic disorder and acquired brain injury, remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital.

The Board also maintained a condition restricting the accused's cannabis use to prescribed medicinal purposes, rejecting his request for unfettered access, due to his history of overuse leading to psychosis, functional impairment, and conflict with staff.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the accused applied to introduce character evidence of the deceased to support a claim of self-defence.

The accused had shot the deceased, who was attempting to steal his truck, and claimed the deceased made a threatening gesture as if holding a gun.

The proposed evidence included the deceased's prior convictions for fleeing police, outstanding property charges, a withdrawn assault charge, and photographs of the deceased with weapons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate a propensity for violence or the use of weapons, and its admission would not legitimately assist the jury while risking prejudice.

The Crown applied to admit statements made by the accused during a police interview following his arrest for murder.

The accused had shot a person attempting to steal his truck.

During the interview, the accused repeatedly asserted his right to remain silent based on legal advice.

The interviewing officer continued questioning, suggesting that explaining his actions could result in a lesser charge or support a claim of self-defence.

The court found that the officer's tactics constituted an implied inducement, overcoming the accused's will to remain silent.

The Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, and the statements were ruled inadmissible.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on a charge of first degree murder.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge failed to properly analyze exculpatory evidence relating to identification and timeline, and that there was no evidence of planning and deliberation.

The court reviewed the limited role of a preliminary inquiry judge under s. 548(1) of the Criminal Code and the principles from appellate jurisprudence governing circumstantial evidence at the committal stage.

It concluded the preliminary inquiry judge properly considered the whole of the evidence and did not exceed the limited weighing permitted in circumstantial cases.

The evidence, if believed, was capable of supporting inferences of identity and planning and deliberation, making committal appropriate.

The Crown sought a ruling that statements made by the accused to police during two interviews in 2006 were voluntary and admissible at trial.

The defence argued the statements were induced by promises of protection for the accused’s family and that the failure to provide Charter cautions violated ss. 7 and 10(b).

The court held the accused was not detained in relation to the investigation and that the interviews were investigative in nature while he was incarcerated on unrelated matters.

Applying the legal detention test, the court found no inducements or promises of favour tied to providing information.

The statements were therefore found to be voluntary and admissible.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, sought to vary a s. 516(2) non-communication order to remove his common-law spouse, a material witness for the Crown, from the list of prohibited persons.

The applicant argued the order unfairly interfered with their relationship and their intention to marry.

The court dismissed the application, finding strong evidence that the spouse had previously expressed fear of the applicant, sought police protection, and that the applicant had a history of threatening and counseling the murder of other witnesses.

The court held that the societal interest in protecting witnesses and ensuring a fair trial justified the continued non-communication order.

The respondent automobile carrier brought an application seeking a declaration that the applicant automobile manufacturer breached a contract governing delivery routes for vehicle shipments.

The applicant brought a counter‑motion seeking to convert the application into an action on the basis that the dispute raised significant factual controversies, including issues of economic duress, contractual interpretation, and the doctrine of good faith in requirements contracts.

The court held that the dispute involved contested facts and credibility issues that could not properly be resolved on an application record.

The court further noted that the law relating to good faith and requirements contracts was developing and that a fuller evidentiary record was necessary.

The application was therefore converted into an action.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought a review of a decision denying him bail pending trial under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the detention order, finding that the applicant failed to show his detention was not justified on the primary ground.

The court noted his significant criminal record, history of breaching court orders, recent misconduct in jail, and an inadequate release plan.