Suzan E. Fraser

James Faichney, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for an assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the ORB erred by failing to consider a Gladue report and principles, and that its finding of a "significant threat" to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB implicitly considered Gladue factors relevant to the threat assessment by addressing the availability of culturally appropriate care, and that the "significant threat" finding was reasonable given evidence of medication non-compliance and unrealistic expectations for independent care.

Martin Hall, found not criminally responsible in 2006 due to mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's 2021 disposition ordering his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with hospital and community privileges, including approved community accommodation.

Hall argued the Board's finding of significant public safety threat was unjustified and that it erred by not seeking further evidence on the sufficiency of the Mental Health Act for committal if a conditional discharge was granted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly Dr. Ali's opinion that supervision was necessary to prevent decompensation and risk to public safety.

The court also found the Board had sufficient evidence regarding the Mental Health Act's adequacy.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for murder, appealed a continued Detention Order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The appeal was based on two grounds: an alleged breach of procedural fairness due to time restrictions during the Board hearing, and an error in denying a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board met the high degree of procedural fairness required and that the Detention Order was a reasonable disposition given the appellant's lack of insight, behavioural issues, and continued risk to public safety.

Helen Tolias, found not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition that ordered her detention.

The Board had conducted the disposition review hearing by videoconference without her consent and in her absence.

The Court of Appeal found this to be a jurisdictional error, rendering the Board's disposition null and void, and rejected the Crown's argument that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's disposition was set aside, and a new hearing was ordered.

The court also varied a previous disposition to allow the appellant to remain at a facility closer to her family.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision upholding a finding of incapacity and a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

By the time of the appeal, the CTO had expired and two subsequent CTOs had been issued, including one based on a new capacity assessment rather than the prior CTOs.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that a decision would have no practical effect on the appellant's rights and no special circumstances warranted hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his community treatment order and upholding the finding that he was incapable of consenting to antipsychotic medication and his community treatment plan.

The Superior Court found the appeal regarding the community treatment order was moot because it had expired and a new order was issued under different statutory criteria.

The court also held the Board made no palpable and overriding error in finding the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment, as there was sufficient evidence he could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decisions.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering continued detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2003, challenged the Board's decision to maintain his detention, arguing the Board failed to consider statutory factors regarding reintegration into society and other needs, and failed to exercise the constant vigilance required for long-term detainees with non-violent index offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had adequately considered all relevant factors and that the evidence reasonably supported the conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

A dual status offender appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing to schedule a placement hearing to determine whether his current place of custody (a penitentiary) was inappropriate to meet his mental health needs.

The appellant argued that the Review Board was obligated to review placement as part of every disposition review, or alternatively, that the Review Board should have exercised its discretion to order a placement hearing on its own motion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Review Board's interpretation that a significant change in circumstances is a prerequisite to scheduling a placement hearing on an offender's application, and found no error in the Review Board's refusal to schedule a hearing on its own motion.

The appellant appealed a December 13, 2018 Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention on a General Forensic Unit at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant had been on conditional discharge and did not attend his Board hearing on December 10, 2018.

His counsel requested an adjournment without providing reasons or a timeframe.

The appellant argued the Board denied him procedural fairness by rejecting the adjournment request and proceeding in his absence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary decision to proceed with the hearing.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.

The appellant, a 36-year-old man with a college diploma and prior employment, had been diagnosed with psychotic delusional disorder and was found not criminally responsible on criminal charges.

The Board found he could understand relevant information but could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of treatment decisions because he failed to acknowledge his mental condition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no procedural unfairness, no unreasonableness in the Board's application of the legal test, and no ineffective assistance of counsel.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning the Ontario Review Board's disposition restricting the liberty of a person in forensic custody.

The appellant, detained for 35 years following a brutal sexual assault conviction, challenged the Board's finding that he posed a continuing threat to public safety.

The appellant also raised procedural fairness concerns regarding the Board's refusal to issue a summons for surveillance tapes, withholding staff names, and declining to address Charter arguments raised only in submissions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's substantive findings but struck one provision of the order regarding an independent assessment due to lack of notice to the parties.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision concerning the appellant's capacity to consent to treatment.

The court found the appeal moot because the appellant had been discharged from the hospital almost five years prior, had no further contact with the mental health system, and the issue of capacity is time-specific.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, concluding there was no live controversy, no practical effect on the parties' rights, no continuing adversarial relationship, and no special circumstances, including reputational concerns, to warrant the use of judicial resources.

The appellant, Timothy Keizer, appealed a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) that found him incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.

The CCB had upheld Dr. Nagari's finding that Mr. Keizer suffered from delusional disorder and was incapable of applying treatment information to his circumstances due to his failure to recognize his illness.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion that Mr. Keizer suffered from a delusional disorder at the time of the hearing was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The court emphasized that a patient's disagreement with a diagnosis does not automatically equate to incapacity, especially when the patient recognizes the manifestations of their condition and their refusal of treatment is based on past experience and a differing medical opinion, rather than a delusion.

The court also determined the appeal was not moot, given the potential impact on future substitute decision-maker decisions.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 2, 2017.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, challenged three aspects of the Board's decision: (1) the finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety; (2) the Board's failure to consider a conditional discharge; and (3) the wording of condition 4(f) of the disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's findings on the first two issues but amended condition 4(f) to clarify the Board's intention regarding restrictions on the appellant's attendance at locations where children under 14 are present.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing there was no evidence he posed a significant threat to public safety, the Board's reasons were insufficient, and his lack of incident while off medication for over a year demonstrated reduced risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reliance on psychiatric evidence of continued mental illness symptoms and escalating risk assessment was reasonable and supported by evidence.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's November 14, 2016 disposition continuing the appellant's detention at a General Forensic Unit and refusing a transfer to another institution.

The appellant raised two issues: (1) whether the Board erred in refusing a second adjournment and dismissing a document disclosure motion, and (2) whether the Board erred in failing to find that the hospital's March 2016 reduction of privileges and implementation of a behaviour intervention plan infringed Charter rights under sections 7 and 9.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the Board's decisions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 21, 2016, which ordered his continued detention at the maximum security facility at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appeal was allowed due to a miscarriage of justice arising from a misunderstanding at the Board hearing.

The Board mistakenly believed that counsel for the appellant (Alvin Pollard) had consented to the Hospital and Crown's recommendation for continued detention, when in fact Mr. Pollard understood himself to be amicus and did not appreciate the significance of the Board's questions.

The Court of Appeal set aside the disposition and referred the matter back to the Board for a new hearing, with directions that Mr. Pollard shall not serve as either amicus or counsel in respect of the appellant.

An appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the appellant's involuntary status under the Mental Health Act.

The appellant, a dangerous offender with a lengthy history of violent and sexual crimes, challenged his detention as an involuntary psychiatric patient, arguing that the Mental Health Act was being used to extend his prison sentence indefinitely (psychiatric gating) and that his Charter rights were violated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant suffers from mental disorders (paraphilia, antisocial personality disorder with psychopathy) that pose a serious risk to others, that the initial Form 1 was properly completed, and that the appellant's Charter claims under sections 7, 9, 11(h), and 12 all failed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board confirming his treating physician's finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

The appellant, who had previously been found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, argued the Board unfairly characterized his evidence and erred in applying the capacity test by focusing on his disagreement with the schizophrenia diagnosis.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded the appellant lacked capacity because he was unable to recognize the possibility that he was affected by the manifestations of a mental illness, preventing him from appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decision.

The appellants appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying an absolute discharge and ordering a transfer to a less secure facility.

The hospital appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by ordering the transfer despite its objections.

The individual appellant argued the Board unreasonably rejected his treating physician's evidence that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hospital received adequate notice but chose not to participate, and that the Board's findings regarding the individual's diagnosis and ongoing threat to public safety were reasonable.