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 Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from sentence, upholding an indeterminate sentence for dangerous offender findings based on violent history and unmanaged risk.
On the whole of the evidence the judge preferred the Crown expert's contextual assessment over reliance on standardized testing alone and concluded the accused, despite a moderate intellectual developmental disorder and very low psychometric scores, possesses sufficient adaptive functioning to make and intelligibly communicate reality‑based decisions about pleas, mode of trial, counsel and whether to testify; therefore he is fit under s.672.23 and the application for a finding of unfitness is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The trial judge’s instructions materially erred by conflating the statutory presumption of sanity with the common‑sense inference of intent, misstating burdens and the role of mental illness and sentencing, and by inadequately responding to the jury’s request (replaying erroneous passages); those errors rendered the charge confusing and prejudicial, requiring that the conviction be set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The accused was convicted of second degree murder after the court rejected automatism, finding his actions were voluntary and supported by motive and organized conduct.
The trial record demonstrates the judge made necessary inquiries and the plea was informed, voluntary and unequivocal; the fresh evidence (medical records and police notes) lacked an affidavit or expert evidence to show the appellant's state of mind at the plea and therefore did not undermine the validity of the plea, so the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court found Ayelech Ejigu fit to stand trial, holding that she understood the proceedings, could communicate with counsel, and could decide whether to testify.
La Cour suprême confirme que la psychose toxique causée uniquement par une intoxication auto‑induite ne constitue pas un trouble mental au sens de l’art. 16 C.cr. dans cette affaire.
The Court concluded the Review Board applied the correct s.672.54 test and that the evidence (continuing personality disorder with harm to others, ongoing substance abuse, and absence of the appellant's key therapist) supported the Board's finding that a community placement condition did not satisfy the least onerous and least restrictive standard; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The fresh evidence conclusively demonstrated the appellant was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder at the time of the offence; therefore the convictions were set aside and a verdict of not criminally responsible was substituted, with disposition referred to the Review Board.
Source excerpt
The trial judge correctly instructed the jury that reasonable doubt about intent due to mental disorder short of insanity limits conviction to manslaughter, and because there was an air of reality to the insanity defence the judge properly left it to the jury; the charge was fair, defence counsel raised no objection, and any alleged error caused no prejudice, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
