COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Coroza, George and Favreau JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Thomas Harpula
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46
Anita Szigeti, for the appellant
Amy Rose, for the respondent Attorney General of Ontario
Heard: May 22, 2026
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated July 30, 2025, with reasons dated September 2, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellant, Thomas Harpula, stabbed his father to death in 2017. He was charged with second degree murder and found not criminally responsible. He is diagnosed with schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder and gambling disorder.
2Mr. Harpula is currently subject to a detention order that includes various terms and conditions, including permission to live in the community within the catchment area of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton subject to the discretion of the person in charge of the hospital.
3At the time of his annual review in 2025, Mr. Harpula had been living in the community under the supervision of the hospital for approximately one month. At the hearing, he sought an absolute discharge. He claimed that he no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) denied this request, finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that neither an absolute nor a conditional discharge was appropriate.
4In his factum on the appeal, Mr. Harpula argued that the Board’s conclusion that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public was unreasonable. At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Harpula shifted this position and submitted that the Board’s reasons were insufficient; specifically, he submitted that the Board failed to articulate the basis on which it found that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In addition, Mr. Harpula argued that the Board misapprehended the evidence of his treating psychiatrist, Khashayar Shariati, regarding his compliance with medication and abstinence from substance use.
5We have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.
6Under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, the Board is required to decide whether a person remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board must be satisfied that there is a real risk of physical or psychological harm, and that the potential harm is serious. The threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative; it must be supported by evidence. The conduct creating the harm must also be criminal in nature: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, at para. 57. In deciding whether the person poses a significant threat, the Board is to consider a number of factors, none of which is dispositive on its own. These factors include the “presence or absence of a significant or recent history of violence; the likelihood of physical or psychological violence; lack of insight into the index offence and mental illness; the likelihood of discontinuing essential medication; and substance abuse and its sequelae of decompensation, psychosis, and unlawful conduct”: McAnuff (Re), 2020 ONCA 676, at para. 17.
7The standard of review that applies to the Board’s decisions is set out in s. 672.78(1) of the Criminal Code:
The court of appeal may allow an appeal against a disposition or placement decision and set aside an order made by the court or Review Board, where the court of appeal is of the opinion that
(a) it is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence;
(b) it is based on a wrong decision on a question of law; or
(c) there was a miscarriage of justice.
8When assessing the reasonableness of a decision, the issue is whether the Board’s reasoning process and the outcome it reached reflect an “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis […] that is justified in relation to the facts and law”: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 85.
9In Marchese (Re), 2018 ONCA 307, 359 C.C.C. (3d) 408, at paras. 8-9, this court observed that, unfortunately, the Board’s reasons often contain a long recitation of the facts with only a cursory analysis of whether a person subject to the Board’s jurisdiction poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. The court stated that decisions that follow this pattern are difficult to probe:
To conduct a “somewhat probing examination” this court must have something to probe. Yet, too often this court sees reasons from the Board that go on at considerable length to recite the [not criminally responsible person’s] history, the evidence considered by the Board, and the parties’ submissions, only to conclude with a cursory analysis of the key issue: is the appellant a significant threat to the safety of the public?
Cursory analysis is difficult to probe. It also risks failing to provide justification, transparency, and intelligibility for the resulting decision. To avoid that risk, in every case the Board’s reasons should clearly explain what evidence in the record leads it to conclude that the condition and conduct of the [not criminally responsible person] creates a significant threat to the safety of the public, both in the sense that there exists a real, foreseeable risk of physical or psychological harm occurring to individuals in the community and in the sense that this potential harm must itself be serious. The Board’s reasons must clearly deal with the likelihood of a risk materializing and the seriousness of the harm that might occur. [Citations omitted.]
10Mr. Harpula submits that the Board’s reasons in this case suffer from a similar defect. He says that the analysis section merely concludes that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the Board failed to link the evidence to the requisite test.
11We agree with Mr. Harpula that the Board’s reasons are not perfect. The analysis section is quite brief and fairly conclusory.
12However, as in Marchese, we are not satisfied that these deficiencies in the reasons rise to the level of making the decision unreasonable. While brief, the analysis section is not devoid of any reasoning. In addition, reading the reasons as a whole, and having regard to the record, it is evident that the Board’s conclusion that Mr. Harpula continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable.
13As indicated above, the index offence was a serious violent offence that happened less than ten years ago. At the time of the offence, Mr. Harpula had no history of violence. He also did not have a significant history of psychotic mental illness. Yet, while experiencing symptoms of psychosis, and following a period of cannabis consumption, Mr. Harpula fatally stabbed his father multiple times.
14As reviewed in the Board’s description of the evidence, Dr. Shariati testified that Mr. Harpula had a stable year since the previous annual review; in particular, he complied with his medication, had no breakthrough psychotic symptoms, had no positive urine drug screens and was able to transition to Orchard 3 at St. Joseph’s, a unit for patients who are transitioning to community living.
15Nevertheless, Dr. Shariati had concerns about Mr. Harpula which he said required higher-than-usual follow up visits from St. Joseph’s Forensic Outpatients Services. Dr. Shariati testified that Mr. Harpula had discontinued his work as a volunteer and had stopped participating in a substance abuse program during the year. In addition, Dr. Shariati’s opinion was that Mr. Harpula had poor insight into his mental illness and his need to abstain from intoxicating substances, which Dr. Shariati viewed as a significant risk factor. Dr. Shariati also noted that, only two years earlier, Mr. Harpula had fled his community living placement with another resident, and had taken steps to disguise his vehicle. He was eventually arrested by the police. In all of these circumstances, in Dr. Shariati’s opinion, Mr. Harpula could not maintain the stability he had experienced in the past year without the intensive supports he received as a forensic patient.
16In its analysis section, the Board described Mr. Harpula’s current circumstances as follows:
Mr. Harpula suffers from a psychotic disorder which is well treated by his current medication and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. However, as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Harpula has a well-documented history of substance abuse and struggles with gambling. Cannabis use occurred prior to the index offence, which was incredibly violent and tragic for the family.
Mr. Harpula has continued to struggle with substance use during his time in the forensic system. This includes past struggles with excessive caffeine and nicotine intake, to the point of sleep deprivation and manic symptomology, as well as more recent struggles with cannabis and alcohol.
Mr. Harpula has had several failed discharge attempts previously, with the most recent attempt occurring in 2023 and resulting in arrest, conviction and readmission to the Hospital. During that elopement, Mr. Harpula admitted to consuming alcohol and cannabis with a co-patient. He went to great lengths to avoid arrest, for example by painting his car red and altering his vehicle’s license plate. Upon readmission to the Hospital, Mr. Harpula stated that his elopement was born out of frustration with the treatment team for not allowing him to keep his dog at his apartment and because he did not want to participate in groups that the team had recommended.
17The Board then concluded that an absolute discharge was not appropriate and would be premature because the evidence supported a finding that Mr. Harpula still posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.
18The Board next considered and rejected the appropriateness of a conditional discharge. The Board noted that the lengths Mr. Harpula went to in 2023 to avoid capture suggested that he would not voluntarily return to the hospital if he was conditionally discharged. The Board further stated that Mr. Harpula lacked insight into his psychotic symptoms “as evidenced by his oral testimony that command hallucinations were the only sign he would look for if he was becoming unwell.” Finally, the Board observed that Mr. Harpula had only been living in the community for one month at the time of the hearing and that “[t]ime will tell if he is able to maintain his current stability and demonstrate an ability to remain abstinent from substances, and more importantly, fully engage in substance abuse and rehabilitative programming as directed by the treatment team.”
19In combination, the Board’s summary of the evidence and its analysis fully support the conclusion that Mr. Harpula continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In particular, it is evident that the Board accepted Dr. Shariati’s evidence that Mr. Harpula still requires careful supervision to support him in abstaining from the behaviour that created the conditions for the commission of the index offence, such as cannabis use. The Board’s concerns in this respect were not speculative, but were based on evidence that Mr. Harpula lacks insight into his condition, that he had escaped from his placement and used cannabis in 2023 and that his recent community placement had only started one month earlier. The Board’s reasons are sufficient for the court to understand its reasoning and what led to its conclusion.
20Mr. Harpula submits that the insufficiency of the Board’s reasons is compounded by a misapprehension of evidence. In particular, Mr. Harpula submits that, contrary to the Board’s reasons, Dr. Shariati never testified that “[a]bsent a Detention Order, [he believed] that Mr. Harpula would resume substance use and discontinue his medications leading to a reemergence of psychosis similar to that which he experienced when he committed the index offence.” The Crown concedes that this was not Dr. Shariati’s specific evidence but submits that this had no impact on the Board’s decision. We agree. The Board did not explicitly rely on this evidence in its analysis. Rather, as reviewed above, the Board relied on Mr. Harpula’s lack of insight, his prior conduct while living in the community and the fact that he had only recently returned to living in the community. In addition, while this was not explicitly Dr. Shariati’s evidence, it was certainly implicit in his evidence that, based on Mr. Harpula’s lack of insight and prior conduct while living in the community, he was not confident that Mr. Harpula would abstain from cannabis use and would continue taking his medication.
21The Crown brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence. The fresh evidence addressed the appellant’s current status. The Crown only sought to rely on the fresh evidence to address the issue of remedy in the event the court allowed the appeal. Given that we are dismissing the appeal, it is not necessary to decide whether the fresh evidence should be admitted.
22The appeal is dismissed.
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“J. George J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”