Legal Project Management Plan & Checklist
Purpose of this Guide: Use this plan to manage ongoing Review Board hearings, file notices, and comply with provincial electronic filing and naming standards. It guides counsel through motions under Rule 8, filing constitutional notices, and representing clients at annual review hearings.
Jurisdiction: This plan operates under Canadian federal law and applies to the Ontario Review Board, British Columbia Review Board, and Quebec CPE. It branches from the parent plan post-verdict.
The Process at a Glance: The process starts with coordinating expert reports and preparing filings. Counsel drafts motions under Rule 8 of the Review Board rules, accompanied by supporting affidavits. If raising Charter issues, counsel serves notice fifteen working days before an annual hearing. Counsel prepares electronic filing packages according to provincial platforms like OCPP and CSO, adhering to specific naming formats and size limits. At the hearing, counsel represents the client and monitors provincial variations in conditional discharges and delegated authority.
Key Legislation and Case Law: The proceeding is governed by Part twenty point one of the Criminal Code (Justice Laws Portal), specifically sections six hundred and seventy-two point three eight, six hundred and seventy-two point four seven, and six hundred and seventy-two point eight one. Key procedural rules are under the Ontario Review Board Rules of Procedure and regional practice directions. Jurisprudence includes Re Woods, 2020 ONCA 685, governing virtual hearing consent during emergencies. Statutory materials and case law are accessible on CanLII (Canadian Legal Information Institute).
* Disclaimer: We're nobody's lawyer, because we aren't lawyers. You are, so you know better than to take legal advice from an app. We also aren't accountants or dog trainers - just digital spirit guides taking zero liability for any of this. This site exists to gather the collective knowledge of practitioners like you. Verify everything and submit your feedback on the Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) Defence and Fitness (Accused) - Review Board Administration & Provincial E-Filing matter plan to improve the playbook. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE, it's a request for input.
This legal matter plan provides a structured workflow for Criminal Law cases, outlining the standard Litigation process. Utilize these tracking templates to manage your legal cases efficiently.
File Rule 8 motions and serve constitutional notices within statutory windows.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.
Verify naming, format, and size requirements, and secure portal credentials.
Coordinate the collection and review of all financial documentation required for disclosure, including statements, valuations, and supporting schedules as mandated by the rules.
Conduct a thorough review of all filed materials to ensure compliance with court requirements, verify service obligations have been met, and prepare for the next procedural milestone.
Assess the strategic considerations for interim applications, prepare supporting evidence, and draft the necessary documentation for urgent or time-sensitive relief sought.
Represent the client and litigate provincial disposition variations.
Verify all prerequisite documentation has been obtained, cross-reference against the statutory requirements for this matter type, and confirm compliance with practice direction protocols.
In Re Woods 2020 ONCA 685, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the Review Board's mandatory duty to hold a disposition review every 12 months under s. 672.81(1) takes paramountcy over the electronic appearance consent requirement under s. 672.5(13) during emergencies.
Prepare the relevant forms and supporting materials required under the applicable legislation, ensuring all mandatory fields are completed and all attachments are properly certified.
Draft and dispatch formal correspondence addressing the procedural requirements at this stage, including any required notices, requests for information, or proposals for resolution.
### Provincial Review Board Variances
| Clinical & Discretionary Parameter | Ontario Review Board (ORB) | British Columbia Review Board (BCRB) | Quebec Review Board (CPE) | |---|---|---|---| | Clinician-Board Agreement Rate | High agreement (≈92.0%) between clinical recommendations and board decisions | Moderate-high agreement (≈86.4%) | Moderate agreement (≈83.5%); board rendered more restrictive decisions in 9.2% of cases | | Community Placement in Detention Orders | High utilization; community living permitted in nearly 60% of detention dispositions | Never utilized; community placement is entirely excluded from detention orders | Never utilized; community placement is entirely excluded from detention orders | | Therapeutic Recommendation Conditions | Never specified as a formal condition within the board's written orders | Universal utilization; specified in 98.2% of detention dispositions | Extremely low utilization; specified in only 1.4% of detention dispositions | | Hospital Delegation of Authority | Not utilized as a primary mechanism in conditional discharges | Negligible utilization (0.9%) in conditional discharges | High utilization; hospital delegation used in 57.7% of conditional discharges |
Got a question about this plan?
Ask in the practitioner Discord - edge cases, rule changes, and jurisdiction-specific nuances, all in one place.
Provincial Review Boards show significant divergence in disposition administration under s. 672.54. Ontario utilizes community placement in detention orders (≈60%), while British Columbia excludes it but uses therapeutic conditions (98.2%). Quebec extensively uses hospital delegation of authority (57.7%) in conditional discharges.