COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Trotter, Zarnett and Copeland JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: Peter Scott Knighton
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
Julia Lefebvre, for the respondent Person in Charge of St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton
Heard and released orally: June 30, 2026
On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated October 16, 2025, with reasons dated November 28, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1Mr. Knighton appeals from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated October 16, 2025.
2The appellant has been under the Board’s jurisdiction since 1987. As of 2021, his disposition orders have permitted supervised community living. However, given his needs, efforts to find a suitable placement have been unsuccessful.
3The Board gave effect to the joint recommendation of the parties to widen the geographical scope of where the appellant would be permitted to live, from “within the catchment area of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton” to “within Southern Ontario.” However, the Board did not accede to the appellant’s further request to order an independent housing assessment. It also expressed concern about its jurisdiction to make such an order.
4The appellant submits that the Board erred in declining to order an independent assessment. We disagree.
5The Board explained why it found the request “clearly unwarranted”:
This is because of the identified and ongoing efforts of the hospital to find community housing for Mr. Knighton coupled with the Board’s agreement to expand the geographic scope of supervised community accommodation to Southern Ontario from a catchment area that was limited to St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton [Emphasis in original.]
6The Board further found that, if further steps to find housing prove “fruitless, it may be appropriate to revisit the merits of an order of assessment of appropriate housing (although it is suggested that the Board’s jurisdiction and ability to make such an order should be explored more thoroughly)”.
7We see no error in the Board’s approach. It found that, in light of the order that it did make, the appellant’s request for an independent assessment was premature. That said, if housing has not been found by the appellant’s next review hearing on October 6, 2026, the Board should engage with its inquisitorial mandate and require further evidence, expert or otherwise, to address the challenges in locating community housing for the appellant.
8The appeal is dismissed.
“Gary Trotter J.A.”
“B. Zarnett J.A.”
“J. Copeland J.A.”