Trevor David Jukes

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused had experienced a recent relapse due to medication non-adherence, resulting in a self-inflicted injury and a temporary restriction of liberty.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The current disposition of a Detention Order with privileges was maintained, and the recent restriction of liberty was deemed justified.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and animal cruelty.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended continuing the current Detention Order at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing substance use issues, recent AWOL incidents, and a history of assaultive conduct.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order at the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including sexual assault and failure to comply with probation.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was floridly psychotic and disorganized.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial.

The Board ordered the accused to be detained in the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges limited to escorted or accompanied passes on hospital grounds, prioritizing public safety and the accused's mental condition.

Austin McParland was found not criminally responsible for dangerous driving and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

At his initial disposition hearing, the Board found that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his bipolar disorder, history of disengagement from psychiatric services, and medication non-compliance.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was insufficient to manage his risk and ordered a detention order with permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences committed against his partner while experiencing active symptoms of schizophrenia.

At his annual Review Board hearing, the hospital and the Crown submitted that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety but recommended amending his detention order to allow community living anywhere in Northwestern Ontario.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that, despite his recent progress and medication compliance, the accused remains a significant threat due to his history of relapses and non-compliance.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order with the requested amendment to his community living privileges.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for three charges of assault.

The accused, diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and a developmental disorder, has resided in a hospital setting for most of his life.

The hospital and the Crown recommended the continuation of a detention order, citing ongoing episodes of emotional dysregulation and aggression towards staff, which the accused did not oppose.

The Board accepted the medical evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the detention order, while noting frustration over the delay in securing appropriate supportive housing.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for attempted murder.

The Board heard evidence that the accused had assaulted a vulnerable co-patient, threatened staff, and continued to use substances while detained at the hospital.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention order, declining to transfer him to a more secure facility at this time but noting that further violent behaviour could prompt an early review.

The accused was referred to the Ontario Review Board after being found unfit to stand trial on charges including sexual assault.

The accused suffers from a moderate developmental delay and schizoaffective disorder.

The Board unanimously found the accused unfit to stand trial, noting his inability to understand the judicial process or communicate effectively with counsel due to his mental disorder.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to protect public safety, with conditions including no contact with the victims and monthly reporting to the hospital.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for uttering threats.

The accused has a history of serious violence, schizophrenia, and substance abuse.

Despite a difficult start to the year, including an AWOL incident and an assault on a co-patient, the accused showed significant recent improvement after agreeing to take injectable antipsychotic medication.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered that the current detention order at the hospital be maintained, allowing for gradual community reintegration as his condition stabilizes.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges including sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm.

He has been under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board.

Following a change in his medication regimen, including the introduction of Amisulpride, his mental health substantially improved.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused's counsel jointly submitted that he is now fit to stand trial.

The Board applied the fitness test from Bharwani and concluded that the accused has a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and can meaningfully participate.

The Board unanimously found the accused fit to stand trial and ordered him returned to court pursuant to section 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code, while maintaining his current disposition.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault after stabbing her partner.

At her initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital and Crown sought a Detention Order, while the accused sought a Conditional Discharge.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, mood lability, and a history of medication non-compliance.

The Board concluded that a Detention Order is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage her risk, as the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to ensure her continued treatment and supervision.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including attempt murder and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The accused suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder and aphasia following a stroke, rendering him unable to meaningfully participate in a trial.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of his attending psychiatrist and the joint position of the parties, the Board found that the accused remains unfit and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered that the accused remain subject to a conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended the continuation of the Detention Order, which the accused supported.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with the same conditions, including a prohibition on intoxicants, while noting his progress in community living.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for failing to stop for police and taking a motor vehicle without consent.

The hospital and the Attorney General initially sought a continuation of the conditional discharge, while the accused sought an absolute discharge.

The Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the accused was medication compliant, functioning well in the community, and had been accepted by a non-forensic community support team.

Applying the test from Winko, the Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for abduction of a person under 14 years of age.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused all agreed that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but that this threat can be managed with a conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused has matured, is compliant with medication, and has had a very good year despite ongoing struggles with synthetic substances.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with specified privileges and prohibitions.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused who was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of sexual assault.

The hospital and the Crown submitted that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, recommending a continuation of the conditional discharge.

The accused's counsel accepted that the accused is likely permanently unfit.

The Board accepted the medical evidence that the accused suffers from dementia and significant medical issues, and remains a significant threat to public safety due to a history of inappropriate sexual touching.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an 86-year-old accused who was previously found unfit to stand trial on a charge of manslaughter.

The accused suffers from progressive dementia and resides in a behavioural support unit at a long-term care facility.

Based on the hospital report and the testimony of her treating psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused remains globally unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to her history of aggressivity.

The Board ordered the continuation of her conditional discharge, finding it to be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition that manages the risk while meeting her mental health and cultural needs.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to review the Hospital's restriction of the accused's liberties.

The accused, who was previously living in the community, was admitted to the forensic inpatient unit after experiencing rapid decompensation, manic symptoms, and medication noncompliance.

All parties agreed that the restriction was justified.

The Board found that the restriction of liberties was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, brought an application to sever his trial from his co-accused, who was charged with second-degree murder arising from the same incident.

The applicant argued that severance would allow for a shorter judge-alone trial and avoid potential delay issues.

The Crown opposed the application, citing the joint enterprise nature of the allegations and the need to avoid duplicating testimony.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the charges were factually and legally connected, and the applicant failed to establish that a joint trial would work an injustice.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Z.M.L. for manslaughter under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found Z.M.L. guilty as a joint principal in a violent group assault that caused the death of William Wapoose.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year custody and supervision order, with a significant custodial component in an adult facility.

The defence argued for a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order (DCSO), asserting Z.M.L.'s involvement did not constitute serious bodily harm and that time on bail was sufficient.

The court rejected the DCSO, finding Z.M.L.'s actions caused serious bodily harm, and imposed a three-year custody and supervision order, consisting of eighteen months in an adult facility (with credit for time served) followed by eighteen months of conditional supervision.

The court emphasized accountability, rehabilitation, and denunciation, while acknowledging the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness for youth.