Suzan E. Fraser

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board applied an incorrect legal test by focusing exclusively on public safety and unreasonably disregarded expert evidence that he could be managed in a medium security facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly considered all statutory criteria and balanced the appellant's treatment needs against the risk he posed to the public.

The Court upheld the Board's conclusion that the proposed management plan was speculative and that the appellant was not an appropriate candidate for a medium secure setting due to his unwillingness to undergo a necessary medication trial.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board denying a transfer from a maximum secure facility to a medium secure facility.

The appellant argued the Board erred by refusing to receive an expert report from a forensic psychologist due to late filing, which was caused by legal aid funding delays.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal prevented it from conducting the mandatory inquiry under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, as the report was essential to assessing the appellant's risk and determining the least onerous disposition.

The appellant appealed two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals as moot because a subsequent disposition order had been made in September 2005.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the merits despite the mootness, noting that any evidentiary issues regarding the appellant's alleged drug trafficking should be addressed at the next disposition hearing.

The appellants, police officers and a police services board, were wholly successful on appeal in an action brought by the respondent regarding her treatment in police custody.

The appellants sought costs of $150,000 for all levels of court.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs to the successful appellants, finding that the case raised complex issues of general public importance regarding police duties to detainees.

Given the public interest nature of the litigation and the respondent's severe financial hardship, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The respondent was detained in a police holding cell and attempted to hang herself using her brassiere.

Police officers forcibly removed her clothing and, when she refused to move into the view of a video camera, handcuffed her to the cell bars while naked.

The trial judge dismissed her action for negligence, assault, and Charter breaches, finding the police acted reasonably and in accordance with policy.

The Divisional Court ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge failed to consider her dignity and privacy interests.

The Court of Appeal allowed the police officers' appeal and restored the trial judge's dismissal, holding that the trial judge did not ignore the evidence regarding her dignity and privacy, and that there was no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an order for DNA testing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's assertion that DNA testing would affect his risk assessment or the Board's dispositions was speculative and highly unlikely.

The Court declined to determine whether the Board had jurisdiction to make the requested order.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a mental health centre.

The Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a substance abuse problem that rendered him aggressive and violent.

The Court of Appeal found no errors of law and held the Board's decision was reasonable.

The appellant's application to adduce fresh evidence was dismissed, as the evidence pertained to his pending annual review and did not show the Board erred in its original decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Attorney General applied for judicial review of a Consent and Capacity Board decision which held that the Board had jurisdiction to determine the constitutional validity of the community treatment order (CTO) provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The Divisional Court applied the Martin test and concluded that the Board's mandate involves applying facts to prescribed statutory criteria, not deciding questions of law.

Furthermore, the strict statutory timelines for Board hearings rebut any presumption of jurisdiction to hear complex Charter challenges.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the Board's decision on jurisdiction was quashed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, was transferred from a medium security facility to a maximum security facility by order of the Ontario Review Board.

The Review Board concluded that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' test under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code did not apply to the specific conditions of the disposition.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the 'least onerous and least restrictive' requirement applies to the disposition order as a whole, including its conditions.

The Court found that the Review Board committed an error of law and that the Crown failed to demonstrate that no substantial wrong occurred, entitling the appellant to a re-hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board ordering his transfer from a medium security facility to a maximum security facility (Oak Ridge).

The appellant conceded he posed a significant threat to public safety but argued the Board unreasonably assessed issues of risk and trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonably supported by uncontradicted expert evidence regarding the appellant's lack of progress, risk level, and need for a highly structured environment.