Valerie Dawn Culp

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with a persecutory delusional disorder, had been living in the community at a highly supported housing accommodation under a conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the joint position of the parties and the psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as his delusions would likely intensify if he ceased medication.

The Board ordered that the conditional discharge be maintained as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, with a modification that his housing need not be strictly stipulated as the current high-support facility.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for uttering death threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, resides in transitional housing and continues to experience significant delusional ideation.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, as he lacks insight into his illness and would likely disengage from care and become verbally threatening if discharged.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order to allow the hospital to manage his transition to permanent housing, while removing the urine drug screen requirement and reducing the reporting frequency.

The Ministry of the Attorney General requested an early hearing to add a no-contact condition and a geographic boundary restriction to the accused's disposition, following his NCR finding for manslaughter.

The Ontario Review Board ordered a condition prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the victim's immediate family and a 150-metre restriction from their homes, workplaces, or places of worship.

However, the Board declined to impose the broad geographic boundary restriction, finding it was not necessary or appropriate given the accused's clinical stability and the potential negative impact on his reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault in 1996.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and polysubstance use disorder, was unable to attend due to a recent hospitalization for a physical injury.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing symptoms, limited insight, and historical risk of violence when non-compliant with medication or using substances.

The Board ordered a continuation of the conditional discharge but removed the abstain and submit conditions, noting his lack of access to substances and the vigilance of his residence staff.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and other offences due to schizophrenia and intellectual disability.

All parties jointly recommended the continuation of a conditional discharge.

The Board accepted the evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but is doing well in his current supervised residence.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with the same terms as the previous year.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, was readmitted to the hospital from his community residence due to escalating verbal aggression, threats, and smoking indoors.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of his liberty.

Applying the Campbell framework, the Board found that the restriction of liberty from December 20, 2024, to February 4, 2025, was a significant restriction but was necessary, appropriate, and the least restrictive intervention available to stabilize the accused and prevent the loss of his community placement.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for first-degree murder after killing his brother while experiencing a severe psychotic decompensation.

At his initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the hospital recommended a detention order with limited privileges, citing the accused's partial insight and recent requests to discontinue his antipsychotic medication.

The Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Applying the factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the Board ordered a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with privileges up to and including accompanied community passes, but declined to grant indirectly supervised community access.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, who has a severe and long-standing substance use disorder, sought a conditional discharge.

The hospital and Crown recommended continuing the detention order.

The Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to the high risk of relapse and rapid onset of psychosis if not properly supervised in the community.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order to ensure the hospital retains authority to approve housing and facilitate timely readmission if necessary.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm against an intimate partner, appeared for an annual review of his conditional discharge.

The Ontario Review Board considered expert evidence and the joint recommendation of the parties.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of violence, partial insight, and risk of relapse into psychosis.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge with varied conditions regarding reporting frequency and travel.

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

The accused, diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder, sought an absolute discharge.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended maintaining the current detention order.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his treatment-resistant illness, history of medication non-compliance, and lack of insight.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was inappropriate and ordered that the detention order remain in place to ensure necessary supervision and treatment.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the hospital's decision to significantly restrict the liberty of an accused found not criminally responsible.

The accused had been readmitted to the hospital twice due to mental state deterioration, medication non-compliance, and alcohol use.

The Board found that the hospital's actions during both readmissions were the least onerous and least restrictive interventions necessary for public safety and the accused's well-being.

The Board also amended the accused's disposition to remove a recommendation for transfer to Alberta, as requested by the parties.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and mischief, suffers from treatment-refractory schizophrenia and severe substance use disorders.

The Board accepted the expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the current detention order without changes.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory review of the accused's disposition and a review of two recent restrictions of his liberty.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, had been living in supervised community accommodation but was readmitted to the hospital due to relapses into cannabis and crack cocaine use.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his unstable mental illness, substance abuse, and lack of insight.

The Board also concluded that the hospital's decisions to restrict his liberty and readmit him were necessary and appropriate to protect the public.

A Detention Order was maintained.

Sentencing following conviction after trial for historical sexual abuse of two very young child relatives by a trusted caregiver.

Applying the Supreme Court's framework for child sexual abuse sentencing, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, profound long-term harm, breach of trust, repetition of abuse, the victims' vulnerability, and the aggravating effect of a family cover-up.

Although the offences were approximately 35 years old, the passage of time did not diminish their seriousness or impact.

The court reduced the otherwise fit 10-year global sentence to 9 years to reflect the offender's poor health, limited English, and the harsher custodial consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, then credited pre-trial custody for an effective sentence of 8 years and 4 months concurrent.

Ancillary DNA, SOIRA, firearms prohibition, and non-communication orders were also imposed.

The accused, A.M., charged with non-consensual distribution of intimate images under s. 162.1 of the Criminal Code, brought a motion for direction regarding the admissibility of the complainant's prior sexual activity.

The defence argued that neither the statutory regime under s. 276 nor the common law regime from R. v. Seaboyer applied.

The Crown contended that s. 276 applied, or alternatively, Seaboyer.

The court ruled that s. 276 did not apply in the particular circumstances of this case, as the images depicted consensual activity and thus did not implicate an enumerated offence.

However, the court found that the common law Seaboyer regime did apply to the offence of distributing intimate images, requiring the defence to file a written application, supported by affidavit or testimony, detailing and justifying the proposed evidence.

Ginye Clarke pleaded guilty to multiple offences including robbery with a firearm, breach of recognizance, and various firearm possession charges.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 to 8 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years (60 months), applying 27 months of Summers credit and an additional 10 months of Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, resulting in a further 23 months to be served.

Ancillary orders for DNA, firearm forfeiture, and a lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed, along with 12 months of probation.

Samantha Brown pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death, failing to comply with a recognizance, and possession of cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors including a prior impaired driving conviction, driving without a license while on bail, and an ongoing pattern of dangerous driving.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, sincere remorse, motivation for treatment, and family support.

The court balanced deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, imposing a sentence of six and a half years imprisonment (five years and three months after pre-sentence custody credit) for impaired driving causing death, with concurrent sentences for the other charges, and a five-year driving prohibition commencing at the end of imprisonment.

Muse Abdirahim was sentenced for seven offences arising from two armed robberies committed in 2010.

He pleaded guilty to six charges and was found guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to wound.

The Crown sought a 12-year global sentence, while the defence proposed 6 years, emphasizing mitigating factors such as the offender's youth at the time, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and significant rehabilitation efforts over the nine years between the offences and sentencing.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the mandatory minimum sentences for firearm use, and the severe impact on the victim, balanced against the offender's strong prospects for rehabilitation and the lengthy delay.

A global sentence of 8 years incarceration was imposed, to be served consecutively to a prior four-year sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to wound following an armed robbery of a cellular wireless store where the owner was shot in the neck.

The accused pleaded guilty to several related charges but contested the intent required for the remaining two charges, claiming the handgun discharged accidentally.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible but found reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill, resulting in an acquittal for attempted murder.

However, the court found the accused guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to wound, concluding that intentionally firing a loaded handgun at the victim's upper body from close range proved the requisite intent.

The accused, an inmate at the Toronto South Detention Centre, was charged with aggravated assault after attacking another inmate in a protective custody unit.

The incident was captured on security cameras.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence, alleging the complainant had threatened him and made a 'gun' gesture.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's testimony lacked credibility and was contradicted by the video footage, which showed the accused as the unprovoked aggressor.

The court concluded the accused's actions were not reasonable in the circumstances and found him guilty of aggravated assault.