Suzan E. Fraser

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2008, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention order.

He argued the Board erred in law by equating the harm of criminal harassment with a 'significant threat to the safety of the public' under s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not focus solely on the index offence but considered all evidence, including the likelihood that the appellant would discontinue medication and engage in physical and aggressive behaviour.

The Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for the forcible seizure of a child and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a secure forensic unit.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge, or a transfer to a different facility to access a larger gay community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to the public was reasonable and supported by expert evidence indicating he remained untreated and unstable.

The court also upheld the Board's refusal to transfer the appellant, noting the request was premature and lacked therapeutic justification.

The appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board erred by departing from a joint submission without adequate notice and by admitting unredacted victim impact statements containing inadmissible material.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing did not proceed on the basis of a true joint submission, that adequate notice of the Board's concerns was given, and that the Board made no reviewable error in admitting the victim impact statements.

The appellant, detained in the forensic mental health system after being found not guilty by reason of insanity, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his continued detention.

He argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to direct the hospital regarding a sleep deprivation issue caused by hourly bed checks.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's decision was reasonably supported by evidence of the appellant's threatening behaviour and paranoia, and that the ORB's recommendation for an independent third-party opinion on the bed check issue was appropriate.

The appellant, who had been continually detained under certificates of involuntary admission since 2005, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his civil committal.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal as moot based on a recent Court of Appeal decision regarding the constitutionality of the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred in finding the matter moot, as there were live factual and legal issues regarding the appellant's specific detention.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for an expedited rehearing.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and was detained at a secure forensic unit.

The Ontario Review Board granted a conditional discharge, concluding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety despite the hospital's recommendation for an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable as the evidence did not support a finding of significant risk to the public.

An absolute discharge was substituted.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for assault and attempted kidnapping, was detained at a mental health facility.

His treating physician found him incapable of consenting to antipsychotic medication for his delusional disorder, a finding confirmed by the Consent and Capacity Board and upheld by the Superior Court.

On appeal, the appellant argued the physician's evidence was uncorroborated and the incapacity finding was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the physician's evidence was corroborated by the appellant's own testimony and documentary evidence, and the board's conclusion that the appellant could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of refusing medication was reasonable.

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1984, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his continued detention in a general forensic unit.

The Board found that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his explosive anger, untreated paranoia, and lack of insight.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of significant threat was reasonable and that it correctly applied the least onerous and least restrictive disposition test under the Criminal Code.

The appellant, who had a long-standing history of mental illness, was found NCRMD on a charge of assault with a weapon after chasing his neighbour with a pick axe.

At his initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the Board ordered his detention in a secure forensic unit.

The appellant appealed, arguing for a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board did not give adequate consideration to whether a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in the circumstances, and directed the Board to reconsider its decision.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to a medium secure all-male unit at Brockville Mental Health Centre.

Brockville also appealed the disposition, arguing the Board failed to make sufficient inquiries about the suitability of the transfer given its waiting list.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the Board had sufficient information to make its disposition and properly considered the appellant's history, including the facts underlying a recent sexual assault acquittal, to determine the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) eight years prior, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a maximum security facility.

He argued the Board erred by refusing to order his transfer to another psychiatric facility for an independent assessment, citing a change in his psychiatric diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably exercised its discretion in concluding that a transfer was not necessary for an appropriate disposition and that treatment and assessment could continue at his current facility.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board erred in its application of the Winko test by failing to properly assess whether the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, specifically regarding the risk of serious physical or psychological harm.

The appeal was allowed and the matter returned to the Board for rehearing.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible and detained in a psychiatric facility, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued that his transfer to a more restrictive unit violated his rights under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, and sought a conditional discharge as a stand-alone remedy under section 24(1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's findings that the transfer was necessary due to the appellant's dangerous conduct and did not violate his Charter rights.

The Court also affirmed that the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy, such as a conditional discharge, that would endanger public safety and frustrate its statutory mandate.

The appellant, a serial sexual murderer, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board directing his continued detention at the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene.

The appellant conceded he remained a significant risk to public safety but argued that a transfer to a medium secure unit at the Brockville Mental Health Centre would be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably considered the appellant's ongoing minimization of his sexually deviant offences, the potential for reduced staff diligence in a medium secure setting, and the equivalent treatment modalities available at both facilities.

The Court concluded the Board made no error in its assessment of the statutory criteria and the appellant's placement.

The appellant appealed from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board that ordered his detention at a minimum security unit.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in failing to grant him an absolute or conditional discharge, asserting he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not improperly shift the burden of proof and that its conclusion regarding the appellant's threat to public safety was reasonable based on the expert evidence.

The Court also held that a conditional discharge was not realistic given the appellant's failure to comply with hospital conditions.

The appellants, who were each found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) on consent, appealed their verdicts.

They argued that the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to mandate an inquiry into whether an accused's consent to an NCRMD finding is voluntary and informed, similar to the inquiry required for guilty pleas under section 606(1.1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Charter challenges, finding no violation of fundamental justice or equality rights.

The Court also dismissed the appellants' individual arguments regarding the reasonableness of their verdicts, fitness to stand trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board refusing to order an independent assessment at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

The appellant did not challenge his continued detention at Oak Ridge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that an independent assessment was unnecessary was reasonable and supported by the uncontradicted evidence of a doctor.

The applicants sought judicial review of decisions by two coroners refusing to issue a summons to a government official to testify about the composition of the jury roll in the Thunder Bay district, specifically regarding the representation of First Nations individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, holding that coroners have no statutory authority under the Coroners Act to inquire into or remedy the process used by the sheriff to compile the jury roll under the Juries Act.

The court found no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice in the coroners' refusals.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasons were adequate and the result was not unreasonable.

The Court noted that the appellant's aboriginal background was only briefly mentioned before the Board, but drew the Board's attention to the requirement to consider such background in future hearings.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, raising for the first time the issue of whether the Board had jurisdiction to order random breath and urine sampling as a condition of his residing in the community.

The Court of Appeal declined to hear the jurisdictional issue, noting that the condition had been in effect since 2002, the record was unclear as to whether the appellant had consented to it, and it was unclear whether the treatment team would have recommended community living without it.

Finding no merit in the other issues raised, the court dismissed the appeal.