Background
Martin Hall appealed from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 7, 2025, reported at [2025] O.R.B.D. No. 2902, with reasons dated February 4, 2026. The Board had found that he posed a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered him detained at the Forensic General Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto. On appeal, Hall sought an absolute discharge and, in the alternative, removal of the cannabis prohibition from his disposition. In the further alternative, he requested a new hearing.
The appeal was heard on October 28, 2026, by a panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario consisting of Huscroft, Miller and Sossin JJ.A. (Docket: COA-26-CR-0161). Lisa Leinveer appeared for the appellant; Chelsea Gordon for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario; and Jessica Szabo and Gena Meaney for the respondent Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
The Court’s Holding
The court concluded that the majority of the Board acted unreasonably in concluding that Hall should be detained. Although the court stated that the appropriate remedy would ordinarily be a new hearing, it noted that the Board’s next annual review of Hall’s disposition was already scheduled for November 2, 2026. As a result, the court expressly held that “there is no need to order a new hearing.” The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board, directing that the annual review proceed as scheduled. The court did not grant an absolute discharge, did not set aside the detention order, and did not order a new hearing.
The court reiterated the governing standard from Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (3d) 209, at para. 17: the “significant threat” standard is an onerous one, an NCR accused is not to be detained on the basis of mere speculation, and the Board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the appellant in order to deny an absolute discharge. The appellant is entitled to an absolute discharge unless it is established that he poses a significant threat to public safety.
Applying that standard, the court found the Board’s reasons did not adequately address the question of risk. Hall is diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance abuse disorder and has limited insight into his condition. However, the index offence—an assault on his friend—occurred in 2005, more than 20 years ago, and there have been no recorded incidents of violence in the past two decades, including during periods when he was living in the community. The court cautioned the Board against continuing to detain Hall year after year in circumstances that change very little. While acknowledging a risk that Hall might engage in substance abuse, lose contact with his treatment team, or become homeless if no longer detained, the court emphasized that the question is not whether he would benefit from continued detention, but whether the Board has established that he poses a significant threat to public safety. The Board’s decision on that question was not reasonable.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Ontario Review Board, but did not order a new hearing because the annual review was already scheduled for November 2, 2026.
- The court did not grant an absolute discharge or set aside the detention order; it held only that the Board’s majority acted unreasonably in concluding Hall should be detained.
- The “significant threat” standard under Carrick (Re) requires the Board to be satisfied of both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm; detention cannot rest on mere speculation or on a finding that detention would be beneficial.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that the Ontario Review Board must rigorously apply the onerous “significant threat” standard and cannot justify continued detention simply because it may benefit the accused. The court drew a clear line between concerns that an individual might be better served by detention—such as risks of substance abuse, losing contact with treatment providers, or homelessness—and the legal justification required to deny an absolute discharge. The ruling also illustrates a pragmatic remedial approach: where an annual review is imminent, the court may remit without ordering a new hearing, allowing the scheduled review to proceed with guidance from the court’s reasons.