Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Matthew Aeichele’s appeal and upheld continued detention under Part XX.1, finding the Board’s disposition reasonable.
The court rejected NCRMD, found the accused criminally responsible, convicted him on aggravated assault, disarming a peace officer, and obstruction, and dismissed attempted murder and weapons-possession charges.
Midtrial ruling that NCRMD had not yet been raised; mental-disturbance evidence could still be used on mens rea, but a later first-branch s. 16 claim could not relitigate intent.
La Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique a accueilli l’appel du ministère public, annulé l’acquittement de Colin Raymond Correia et ordonné un nouveau procès.
The Court of Appeal set aside a dangerous offender designation after finding the trial judge applied too low a standard for future risk, and ordered a new hearing.
Court found Colin Faustus John not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for murder and attempted murder, accepting psychiatric evidence and the NCRMD test under s. 16.
Although the accused suffered from a psychotic disorder, he failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the disorder rendered him incapable of knowing the stabbing was wrong because there was no direct or admissible indirect evidence of his beliefs or state of mind at the critical moment; the mere possibility of incapacity advanced by expert evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of criminal responsibility.
Source excerpt
The court found the accused not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder after accepting expert evidence that schizophrenia deprived her of moral awareness.
Appeal allowed in a motor vehicle damages case where the trial judge misapprehended psychiatric evidence. The matter was remitted for reconsideration of damages.
The Court found the Board reasonably accepted the attending psychiatrist’s evidence that the appellant would likely stop medication, decompensate and become violent; threats to kill meet the seriousness requirement; conditional discharge was impractical given rapid deterioration; therefore the continuation of detention was reasonable and the appeal must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
