ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Williams, 2026 ONCJ 382

DATE: 2026 06 12

COURT FILE No.: 23-48123769

Toronto Region

B E T W E E N :

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

LIONEL BRIAN WILLIAMS

Before Justice H. Pringle¹

Oral Reasons for Judgment released on June 3, 2026 Written Reasons for Judgment released on June 12, 2026

Mihael Cole........................................................................................... counsel for the Crown

Paula Rochman counsel for the accused

PRINGLE J.:

Overview of the Dangerous Offender Application

1Mr. Williams suffers from schizophrenia, a chronic and primary psychotic disorder with a number of positive and/or negative symptoms. These can include “delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thought, disorganized behaviour, negative symptoms, or some combination of those diagnoses that has an impact on someone’s social occupational functioning in the community”.²

2His schizophrenia responds well to treatment with anti-psychotic medication. Untreated, he is unpredictable and violent.

3When given the choice to take psychiatric treatment or not, Mr. Williams invariably chooses to remain untreated. His mental illness is exacerbated by his use of cannabis. His significant cannabis use underlies part of his substance use disorder diagnosis.

4He also eschews any stabilizing community assistance. He is unhoused and prefers it that way. He refuses to apply for any governmental financial assistance. In court, Mr. Williams often declines to permit lawyers to help him. Indeed, he pled guilty before me, while unrepresented and knowing the Crown wished him designated a dangerous offender.

5Mr. Williams has a long criminal record, spanning decades, and a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Historically, the evidence shows a direct connection between periods of unmedicated mental instability, the eruption of psychotic episodes, and his subsequent victimization of random strangers.

6He has never served a sentence in the federal penitentiary or the provincial reformatory system. He has never been on parole. Typically, Mr. Williams’ sentences have been served in the form of presentence custody, at remand centres around Toronto.

7In 2023 Mr. Williams was sentenced to one year jail, the longest sentence he ever received. But it was served mostly at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TDSC), in remand custody. Pending this dangerous offender application, Mr. Williams was similarly at the TDSC.

8The predicate offence he pled guilty to, on September 5, 2024, must be understood In the context of offences he committed shortly beforehand. On November 27 2022, December 1, 2022, and January 22 2023, Mr. Williams violently assaulted three separate women. All were strangers to him. While none of his victims suffered significant injury, that outcome was a matter of sheer luck.

9While he was sentenced to one year, he had already served much of that sentence up front, by virtue of being denied bail. Mr. Williams served the remainder, was released to the community without meaningful supervision, and quickly did it again. On November 1, 2023, he assaulted Ms. N.A., a stranger to him who was out walking, by throwing a rock at her head.

10The rock struck her head with significant force. She fell to the ground. Hospitalization proved she suffered a concussion and a 2.5 cm laceration at her hairline. She is emotionally traumatized, anxious, and has lost her sense of safety in this city.

11The Crown applied to have Mr. Williams assessed pursuant to s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code (hereinafter Code). They forecast a Dangerous Offender (DO) application and the possibility of an indeterminate sentence. Despite being informed of this, Mr. Williams steadfastly refused the assistance of defence counsel. Ms. Rochman was appointed amicus.

12Months into the pending application, Mr. Williams agreed that amicus could represent him as counsel. Crown counsel Mr. Cole and I were both content, in the unique circumstances of Mr. Williams’ case, that the change in Ms. Rochman’s role was entirely appropriate.

13After the psychiatric assessment, completed on June 30, 2025 by Dr. Treena Wilkie, the Attorney General provided s. 754(1)(a) consent to proceedings being instituted to have Mr. Williams declared a Dangerous Offender. The Crown sought an indeterminate sentence.

14Defence counsel sought the Dangerous Offender application dismissed. In the alternative, she argued he should serve additional custody at St. Lawrence Valley Treatment Centre (SLV), be designated a Long-Term offender, and subjected to a 10-year Long-Term Supervision order (LTSO). If the court imposed a Dangerous Offender designation, defence sought a determinate sentence be served at SLV and a 10-year LTSO.

15Four viva voce witnesses testified:

• Dr. Treena Wilkie, a psychiatrist qualified as an expert to opine in the area of forensic psychiatry, assessment of violent offenders and assessment of risk;

• Dr. Stephanie Penney, a psychologist qualified as an expert to opine in the area of cognitive assessments and risk assessments;

• Brad Tamscu, the manager of mental health and addictions in the Clinical Services Branch of the Ministry of the Solicitor General;

• Gifty Asubonteng, a Parole Officer with the Correctional Service of Canada.

16Documents from many government agencies involved with Mr. Williams were provided to Dr. Wilkie: from Children’s Aid Society, probation, foster care, youth detention centres, adult detention centres, numerous hospitals, police, and the courts. Counsel confirmed these documents were all available for me to use for their truth as I see fit, and I have reviewed and considered them. Mr. Williams also wrote letters to Dr. Willkie and the Court.

Mr. Williams’ Formative Years

17As per Dr. Wilkie, “Adverse Childhood Experiences” are known to affect cognitive and affective processing. There is little of Mr. Williams’ upbringing that does not fit the concept of an “adverse childhood experience”.

18Both Dr. Penney and Dr. Wilkie opined that Mr. Williams’ tragic childhood created an inability to form supportive relationships. This has led him, as an adult, to consistently reject professional and community supports.

19His mother, Angela, was 18 when Mr. Williams was born. She was schizophrenic and transiently housed. Occasionally, her mental health struggles led to hospitalization. His father, Victor, was 30. He self-described himself as the “black sheep” of his family, with criminal antecedents and drug use. He was quick to resort to anger and verbal abuse.

20Mr. Williams believes his parents met in a shelter. Neither one could responsibly parent him, and separated after his birth. Angela had more children after Mr. Williams, with both a different partner and again with Victor. Victor left the country at some point.

21CAS became involved for support. Also offering support was Angela’s mother, who moved in to help. Her “help” included physically and emotionally abusing Angela in the presence of her children. Mr. Williams recalled, to Dr. Wilkie, witnessing his grandmother bind his mother to a chair with a cable cord and beating her.

22Angela’s unstable mental health disintegrated further. She moved to a shelter. She could not parent her young children meaningfully and kept disappearing from their lives. When present with her children, “[s]he did not have an emotional connection with the children, was not nurturing and her affect was often flat. The children often expressed concern and confusion regarding their mother’s behavior and absence.”³

23By 1994, CAS seized Angela’s children outright and separated most of the siblings. Mr. Williams was 8 years old. Sometimes he and his brother Jordan lived in the same home. Mr. Williams, who is black, was primarily placed in settings with white peers and white staff. He experienced racism early on.

24In 1995, Victor returned from Jamaica and found his children in CAS care. He tried to help them and Angela, who was living on the streets and in shelters. At times, Angela would turn up in different locales – Nova Scotia, New York, Montreal – and was returned to Toronto by social services. She was moved, in 1996, to a home for persons with mental health issues.

25Meanwhile Mr. Williams was frequently moved from placement to placement, mostly as a consequence of his behaviour. In group home settings, he was disrespectful to staff, hyper, and rose to anger easily. Staff often used physical restraint to calm him down. In retrospect, Mr. Williams saw this discipline as a necessary consequence of his actions, and added his behaviour changed little as a result.

26He was stealing, getting in fights, and setting fires while still in elementary school. He had little regard for rules or authority. He maintained monthly visits with each of his parents, and said he wished to live with his mother. But she was in no condition to manage him.

27For brief periods of time, Mr. Williams returned to his father’s home. It was an inappropriate setting to raise a child. His father smoked cannabis around him regularly and used beatings as discipline⁴. He was ill-equipped to parent Mr. Williams, showed no affection towards his son, and failed to set structure and limits to guide his obviously troubled son:

Victor had difficulty managing Mr. Williams’s behavior. In August, Mr. Williams and Jordan were apprehended due to lack of supervision; there were concerns about possible physical abuse and drug use by Mr. Jardine… In December, Mr. Williams went back to live with his father as per his request. From January to November 1997, Mr. Williams’ behavior deteriorated in school. It was noted that Victor was able to meet the basic needs for the children; however, on many occasions between May 1995 and January 1997 he ran out of money, and requested food vouchers; he worked as a casual laborer. Victor expressed anger in front of the children, lacked empathy and did not have realistic expectations of them; “…(Mr. Williams) displays more of a helpful parental role towards his father than his father provides in return”. Victor blamed Mr. Williams for his problems. Jordan said that Victor had slapped Mr. Williams.⁵

28By June 1998, Mr. Williams was returned to CAS care. As he grew older, CAS placements were replaced by youth detention settings. There was no consistency anywhere in his life. He went to six different elementary schools and five different high schools. He was never consistently placed in the same city for long.

29Hayden Youth Services assessed⁶ Mr. Williams in 1998, concerned about his unstable mental health. Reports from 1998 and 1999⁷ suggested he be prescribed Ritalin for ADHD and receive regular psychiatric follow-up. But his mother refused consent to psychiatric treatments for her son. She was concerned that treating him with medication would prove addictive:

…on his mothers’ advice to refuse medication treatment, sessions with Hayden’s consulting psychiatrist were futile and redundant. At plan of care meetings Brian would habitually negate any form of formal treatment. Anger management was discussed regularly with him saying he would not attend…every opportunity was given to him to attend some form of assessment…Brian refused….This young man would benefit from any type of service, not excluding an extensive psychological assessment.⁸

Instability and Violence: Teenaged Years

30As soon as he was old enough to incur criminal charges, Mr. Williams did⁹. Less than one month after he turned 12 years old¹⁰, he used a nearby steak knife to “scare” another group home resident, with whom he had been fighting. He was moved to Hayden Youth Services.

31On November 17 1998, Mr. Williams AWOL’ed from the home with another resident, showing up at his mother’s home only to be returned to state care. Three days later he jumped on one of his peers in the group home and was again charged with assault.

32He assaulted another boy in his group home in August 2000, punching and kicking him. He was charged and failed to show up to his first court appearance. One month later, he assaulted the same victim, scratching him so hard it left marks. This was also a breach of the no-contact condition of his release order.

33Mr. Williams pled guilty to a property offence on November 10, 2000. Eight days later, he scratched the car of a staff member and subsequently was found guilty of Mischief Over $5000 and Fail to Comply Disposition.¹¹

34By December 2000, he was living in the Cassada youth detention centre. His behaviour fluctuated to extremes. He was aggressive, assaultive, but worked hard on his school at times and was believed to be very bright. Again, staff often physically restrained him, to calm him down.

35Workers also attempted to curb his volatile, negative behaviour with a Cognitive Behaviour Management program, meaning a system of rewards and sanctions. Sanctions included consequences like having to remain in his seat. It was not a good fit. He responded to setbacks in progress by being more disruptive, instead of learning from the experience.

36Some anger management and life skills counseling were provided to Mr. Williams at Cassada, and a plan of care note suggests he was complying. But incidents of violence, particularly toward the detention centre staff, continued to erupt.

37He was moved to Better Futures for Children (BFC). Mr. Williams was optimistic about the change. But when it did not work out to those expectations, he quickly became frustrated and did everything possible to get kicked out.

38Violence worked. In February 2001, he was discharged, shortly after he assaulted a staff member by hitting him in the face with a door¹². The assault had been preceded by “raging”, violent, destructive behaviour all day.

39In March 2001, Mr. Williams’ mother committed suicide by throwing herself off a balcony. He was 14 years old. The next month, he pled guilty to some outstanding charges and a Pre-Disposition Report was ordered. The writer said:

It is distressing to see that a youth capable of such sound rational thought is also unable, on a regular basis, to control his emotions and behaviours. Brian has agreed that he is in need of professional clinical intervention to help him deal with the tragic upbringing and familial circumstances that he has found himself in. This is an improvement in his recent attitude where he had always steadfastly refused any clinical intervention….

Brian is a very troubled youth who has had few advantages in his upbringing. Now with CAS, Brian appears to be resisting any and all attempts to find an appropriate placement for him. Brian has also resisted any attempts at providing any therapeutic interventions for him.

In the interests of Brian and the community, it is essential that Brian be placed in an environment that will allow him to stabilize, and then receive the appropriate clinical interventions required.¹³

40He then suffered another family-related blow: in January 2002, his father was deported to Guyana, leaving Mr. Williams entirely in the care of the state. Sometimes, this was foster care. More often as he aged, this was a group home / open custody setting or a youth detention centre.

41Interestingly, almost two years passed beginning April 2001, where he incurred no new criminal convictions and was largely not committing new crime. Residing in a Peterborough home, his behaviour started to stabilize. For the first time, Mr. Williams expressed an openness to getting professional help:

Brian has agreed that he is in (need of) professional clinical intervention to help him deal with the tragic upbringing and familiar circumstances that he has found himself in. This is an improvement in his recent attitude where he had always steadfastly refused any clinical intervention.¹⁴

42But by June 24, 2002, he was charged with non-violent offences, and his bail conditions exiled him from the city of Peterborough. He was moved to a home in Richmond Hill.

43A foster family residency in early 2003 quickly ended with Mr. Williams removed for disobeying house rules. By March 4, 2003, he was convicted of assaulting another boy and fail to comply recognizance. November 3, 2003, he was sentenced for the Peterborough-area property offences. A probation note from that timeframe showed reversion to old patterns:

Brian refused all counseling offered by CS and continues to do so.¹⁵

44Then Mr. Williams stayed trouble-free for two years. This was because Mr. Williams, who was by then 16 years old, was sent to live with his great aunt Olive and her family. As per Dr. Wilkie’s report:

Olive had not previously been part of his life, but he described her as welcoming and nice; he “loved” living in her home, along with her three sons, daughter-in-law and three grandchildren. Mr. Williams said that Olive did not approve of his cannabis use, but he otherwise did not cause any problems in her home.¹⁶

45Stability in residence seemed to support behavioural stability. Between 2003 and 2006, Mr. Williams incurred no criminal convictions. He got a short-lived job at Food Basics, received money from C.A.S., and was going to high school. He was reporting to

probation pretty regularly, and completing court-ordered community service hours at a local church.

46He continued to use cannabis, which was a divisive issue between he and Olive. When he became an adult, Olive decided it was time for him to leave and forced him out:

He left her home when he was 18, as Olive thought it was time for him to “leave the nest”. He refused to leave, and Olive ultimately called police to remove him from the home. He was taken to a shelter.¹⁷

47Predictably, Mr. Williams quickly incurred his first adult criminal convictions¹⁸. A man he met outside the shelter convinced him to cash a fraudulent cheque. He was convicted of Utter Forged Document and Possess Property Obtained by Crime.

48Reflecting on the impact Mr. Williams’ childhood had on the adult he has become,

Dr. Wilkie observed:

His presentation belies a history of trauma, attachment difficulties, loss, and interpersonal and geographic instability. He has experienced a number of adverse childhood experiences, known to impact cognitive and affective processing, and health in adulthood.¹⁹

49Similarly, Dr. Penney concluded:

Mr. Williams’ history of trauma and parental loss, combined with the subsequent disruptions in care that he experienced as a youth, must be recognized as having impaired his ability to form supportive and stable relationships in adulthood. This unfortunately maintains Mr. Williams’ elevated risk status to the extent that he stays disconnected from, or is actively rejecting of, personal and professional support systems. More generally, it is well-documented that the cumulative explore to adverse and traumatic events in childhood is related to worse functioning across several domains among people with schizophrenia, including psychiatric problems, substance abuse, physical health problems, and social functioning.²⁰

50In her testimony, Dr. Wilkie expanded on potential cognitive impacts of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs):

The literature, broadly speaking, speaks to more obvious, perhaps, or concrete …difficulties that arise from ACEs. Things like having a lack of parental supervision being associated with core developments or - the lack of development of coping strategies, or how that may impact a person’s trajectory throughout life.

What may be less evidence in the mainstream is that ACEs can also be associated with poor brain development. And the development of things like appropriate stress responses.²¹

Onset of Schizophrenia: Early Adulthood

51In October 2006, a Seaton House staff worker asked Mr. Williams to leave the shelter and “cool off” after a verbal dispute. In response, Mr. Williams assaulted him. More specifically, he “continued to try and push” the victim, then raised his fists and “attempted to strike” the victim. He was restrained by staff. While being escorted out of the shelter, Mr. Williams threatened the victim’s life.

52This was the first of numerous occasions where Mr. Williams was moved from a place of shelter and responded with violence.

53Two months later,²² he was brought into North York General Hospital’s Emergency Dept. [ED] on the first of many Form 1 MHA admissions. He was agitated, had not slept for days, and was telling people he was “super boy”. They treated him with Haldol and Ativan, and opined the event was a substance-induced psychotic disorder.

54After stabilizing, Mr. Williams was returned to Eva’s Place, a youth shelter. Probation notes from 2006 through 2008 show him living in various spots within the shelter system. Then he began to eschew shelter assistance, choosing instead to sleep in stairwells and office buildings.

55Dr. Wilkie’s report commented on Mr. Williams’ instability during this period as

possibly indicative of early-stage psychosis:

It is known that the prodromal period leading up to the more overt development of symptoms of a primary psychotic disorder may include a period of time when individuals present as impulsive, substance using, and as drifting away from a conventional academic or social trajectory. It is possible that prodromal symptoms of psychosis may have contributed to behavioral instability and substance use in Mr. Williams’ teen years.

The first description of overt psychotic symptoms in Mr. Williams’ health record was at age 20 when he presented to hospital with bizarre behavior, lack of sleep, and grandiose statements despite a lack of information regarding his substance use, and his refusal to provide a urine toxicology screen, the psychotic symptoms appeared to resolve quickly and he was diagnosed with a drug-induced psychosis.²³

56Refusing any and all forms of help became another pattern. As an adult, Mr. Williams seemed driven by hyperindependence, while simultaneously being incapable of independent living.

57He was required to report to probation and consistently did so, even given his unhoused, unstable status. Although he generally slept downtown, Mr. Williams chose to continue reporting at the Jane and Finch probation office when offered a closer location. It took effort to get there. He often failed to report on the right day, and failed to meaningfully engage while there, but he showed up.

58He was often intoxicated by cannabis when probation saw him, but refused substance use treatment. Probation took ‘no’ for an answer. By the end of his probationary period in 2008, Mr. Williams was refusing all forms of assistance, including shelter assistance and any form of counseling. When help was presented to him as a choice, he chose to decline help.

59Dr. Wilkie was asked about Mr. Williams’ non-engagement with programming, and whether this was predicative of his future willingness to engage. She said:

I wouldn’t use the word predictive, but I would say that an individual’s history with regard to engaging in therapeutic programming is important to consider when considering whether they would engage in risk management in the future.

And I think the fact that the has not engaged in therapeutic programming is important to note.

I would also say that some of his complex needs and challenges, you know, may have also contributed, both his being unhoused and homeless in the community and also some of his, what I believe to be inter-intellectual or neurodevelopmental deficits may have also contribute din the past to some of his non-engagement.²⁴

60Probation observed bizarre behaviour surfacing. So, too, did more than one worried Crown Attorney. In 2008, one Crown initiated a court-ordered Mental Health Act assessment (Form 6) and wisely expressed her concerns in writing to CAMH:

I believe that on numerous occasions, if not all occasions, Mr. Williams has presented in court as a person with mental health issues…I am troubled by Mr. Williams’ increasingly violent conduct…Mr. Williams has not been amenable to any treatment and has rejected referrals to counselling and substance abuse programs, which were a component of his probation orders….It appears that his expression of unwillingness to accept a referral ended the efforts.²⁵

[emphasis added]

61This Crown had prosecuted Mr. Williams for assault with a weapon, where he was found guilty of slashing a random male stranger with a ripped tin can. The stranger had incurred Mr. Williams’ anger by refusing him a cigarette. The offence date was April 13, 2008. A post-trial Form 6 Order was made Sept. 5, 2008.

62Dr. Swayze’s resulting report opined that Mr. Williams was in the early stages of

schizophrenia (schizophreniform), which needed urgent attention:

[He] has a strong genetic loading for a primary psychotic disorder…

It is critical at the time of first expression of psychosis that individuals be aggressively treated to improve prognosis.²⁶

63Dr. Swayze concluded that the likely presence of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) presented a challenge in expecting voluntary compliance with treatment:

…and, as such, would not be amenable to general psychotherapy, but would respond to external expectations, supervision and restrictions.²⁷

64In other words, the ASPD meant Mr. Williams should not be expected to comply with voluntary treatment, but was more likely to respond if mandated to do so by external forces. This tracked with Mr. Williams declining help when given the choice, but complying with external expectations like reporting to his probation officer.

65After the Form 6 report was received, Mr. Williams was sentenced to time served and two years of probation. The probation order did not mandate counseling, treatment, or assessments, although he was made to sign releases and abstain from drug use.

Untreated, Unhoused, and Violent

66From 2007 through 2013, Mr. WIlliams incurred criminal convictions with depressing regularity:

• 5 common assaults (including the 2006 act of assault at Seaton House);

• 1 assault with weapon (slashing with the ripped can);

• 1 assault cause bodily harm;

• 3 utter threats (including the 2006 threat at Seaton House);

• 2 robberies;

• 9 mischiefs under $5000;

• 2 fraud (1 under $5000, 1 obtain transportation)

• 2 cause disturbance;

• 1 public mischief²⁸;

• 6 fail to comply with probation.

67Additionally, some of his convictions for mischief or causing disturbance had violent undertones: swinging his arms and threatening pedestrians was common. His probation breaches were typically “failing to keep the peace” breaches by committing offences that breached the peace.

68But the substantive offences, in this 2007-2013 timeframe, marked the start of a disturbing pattern – random, unprovoked acts of violence perpetuated upon complete strangers:

• Nov. 28 2007 he threatened a male TTC worker who had previously tried to eject him from panhandling at a subway station;

• Jan. 16 2008 he was aggressively panhandling on Yonge Street. When police investigated him, he got aggressive and resisted being arrested by a male police officer;

• March 30 2008 he was panhandling in McDonalds and told to leave by male employee. That employee pushed him towards door. Mr. Williams punched him in the right eye with his fist. Treatment involved 4 stitches;

• April 13 2008 he was refused a cigarette by male victim and responded by slashing the victim’s face with a torn aluminum can;

• Dec. 4 2010 he randomly attacked a male wheelchair bound victim in an elevator, by grabbing him by the neck and striking the disabled man in the chest multiple times without provocation;

• Sept. 6 2011 he aggressively approached a male stranger on the street and without provocation, punched him, kicked him, and then fled;

• March 5 2012 Mr. Williams was kicked off a streetcar, approached a random stranger in a car, and kicked his headlight until it broke. He said he did it because he got kicked off the streetcar;

• September 13 2012, he approached a man locking up his bike, and kicked that bike hard enough that it bounced back and hit its owner on the arm. Mr. Williams said he kicked the bike because he was kicked out of a TTC station;

• July 13 2013, a special constable tried to remove him from sleeping in an apartment building stairwell. He resisted and threatened twice to “clock” the constable, who had to pepper spray Mr. Williams to get compliance;

• March 3 2014, he was punching out at the faces of passers-by. One punch narrowly missed a pedestrian’s face. Mr. Williams said he had been kicked off the TTC, and had been unsuccessfully panhandling. He was upset and said he punched at these people to “warn them” that he ”could hit you”.

69A 2011 probation Level Service Inventory (LSI) assessed Mr. Williams as high risk to re-offend. This was due to his failure to acknowledge mental health and substance abuse issues, and his persistent failure to take treatment for both. Subsequent LSI assessments mirrored this result.

Psychiatric Diagnoses and their Connection to Offending

70Dr. Wilkie’s s. 752.1 assessment drew a connection between Mr. Williams’ mental health and his criminal offending:

In my opinion, Mr. Williams has multiple psychiatric diagnoses that provide a framework of understanding his symptoms as they relate to anger dysregulation, aggression, cognitive rigidity and lack of insight.²⁹

71Front and centre was the diagnosis of schizophrenia, explained as:

A major mental illness that tends to have its onset, in males, in the second or third decade of life. Once extant, schizophrenia is a lifelong illness. An individual with schizophrenia suffers from symptoms of psychosis. Psychosis is generally defined as the presence of delusions, hallucinations, grossly disorganized thought and behavior, or some combination of these. Social and occupational decline are often prominent, as are a diminution of their motivation and self-care…. The course of illness may be adversely affected by psychosocial stress, an unstructured living situation, alcohol or street drug use, and noncompliance with pharmacotherapeutic treatment.

Mr. Williams has a family history of psychotic disorders, with his mother and uncle reportedly diagnosed with schizophrenia. In my view, he evidences a primary psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, with lengthy periods of untreated psychosis; his psychotic symptoms are likely perpetuated by substance use, and stressors including lack of housing and interpersonal support.³⁰

72Comparing offence dates, arrest dates, fitness orders, treatment orders, and hospitalization records demonstrated a pattern predictive of re-offending. Mr. Williams, unmedicated, would exhibit strange public behaviour, commit bizarre crimes against people and/or property, be taken to court, declared unfit, treated to restore fitness, and quickly plead guilty, often self-representing.

73Police synopses characterized him as an “EDP”, or “emotionally disturbed person”. Even Mr. Williams’ non-violent offences began to reflect an intimidating, disproportionate response to being denied something – typically, while he was trespassing or panhandling. A mischief offence committed on November 27 2013 exemplified this:

Police Constable HAYES and SHAW spoke with the accused and cautioned him regarding sleeping inside the stairwell of the apartment building and that he would have to exit the building. … while getting some distance from the officers the accused started yelling back at the officers and going into an unrecognizable rant. The accused appeared to have some mental health issues.

While the accused was waiting for the elevator, Police Constable HAYES and SHAW stood by to ensure the accused exits the building. The accused then entered the elevator and as the elevator doors were closing he kicked the doors with heavy force. As a result of the kick the elevator doors got stuck mid-way in their track as they were derailed from the track making them inoperable.³¹

74Records from 2010 to early 2011 provide more cogent examples of mental health instability and offending. At times, there was a close temporal connection between arrest dates and remands into Mental Health Court (MHC). For example, when he was arrested on April 4, 2010, Mr. Williams’ mental health was demonstrably unstable. Form 48 fitness assessment orders issued from MHC on April 7, 2010 and April 9, 2010.

75Three weeks later³² he was found unfit to stand trial and a treatment order issued. Sent to Ontario Shores, Mr. Williams was treated with anti-psychotic medication and restored to fitness by early June 2010³³. He was then returned to jail, where he predictably declined to take medication voluntarily. Also predictably, by June 10, 2010 Mr. Williams was back before the MHC and the court was again issuing a Form 48 Fitness Assessment order.

76Later that same year and into 2011, Mr. Williams’ unstable mental health led to serious consequence for a vulnerable human being. On December 4, 2010 Mr. Williams committed a random, violent assault against a disabled man in a wheelchair (described above). Six days later he was taken into custody and it became apparent he was psychiatrically unstable:

• On December 17, 2010 the MHC issued a Form 48 Fitness Assessment;

• By December 22, 2010 Dr. Angus McDonald assessed Mr .Williams, concluded he was “obviously unwell”, was experiencing “clear internal stimuli of an unreal nature”, and was “clearly unfit” to stand trial;³⁴

• December 29, 2010 MHC issued a Form 48 Fitness Assessment, found him unfit the same day, and issued a Treatment Order.

77This time, restoration to fitness was not as quick:

• Dr. Ian Swayze diagnosed Mr. Williams, on December 31, 2010, with schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and ASPD. Treatment with anti-psychotics (25 mg Loxapine and 30 mg Olanzapine) began the same day;

• Jan. 3 2011 Mr. Williams’ GAF score was indicative of “delusions” and “serious impairment”;

• January 27 2011 Dr. Wilkie³⁵ assessed him, concluded he was still unfit, “clearly psychotic”, and recommended he complete the full treatment order;

• Feb. 24 2011 his GAF score showed signs of improvement but “some impairment in reality testing or communication”;

• The day before, February 23 2011, Mr. Williams was assessed again by Dr. Wilkie, who opined he was fit, likely schizophrenic, and likely unable to consent to, or refuse, treatment. She recommended a Keep Fit order (which apparently did not issue).³⁶

78Dr. Wilkie’s past assessment of Mr. Williams was important in multiple ways. In her

Jan. 28 2011 fitness report, she said:

It is difficult to assess Mr. Williams’ certifiability, under the Mental Health Act of Ontario, at the time of his return to Court, as he has, for several weeks, been behaving in a threatening manner, although had not been overtly hostile for the several days at the time of the writing of this report. He has been refusing to talk to any physicians, and, as such, his certifiability according to the Mental Health Act should be re-assessed at the time of any potential release into the community. Similarly, it was not possible to assess his capacity to consent to treatment, or capacity to manage his finances at the current time…

At such time as Mr. Williams returns to the community, pending the resolution of his legal affairs, it is my opinion that this would best take place in the context of certain conditions. Mr. Williams should be followed by a mental health professional, both for ongoing assessment of his mental status, as well as optimization of medication treatment. This gentleman will likely not comply with medication absent a Court order. He should abstain from all illicit substances, as these may have the potential to result in psychotic decompensation. He should be offered case management in the community with respect to securing housing, financial support and access to programming commensurate with his abilities.³⁷

[emphasis added]

79Referencing Mr. Williams’ hospital stay in 2011, where he was subjected to medication by the court’s 60-day Treatment Order, had positive results by its conclusion:

Q. …it appears kind of at the beginning when he’s at CAMH he’s very isolated, very abrasive with staff, quite a management issue for people in a secure area. And then it seems to, over time, improve to where it actually gets that he’s

… trusted to go out to the living room or some area where there’s a TV and there’s some interaction with patients. There seems to be some improvement that happens while he’s there, given where he started, towards the end, is that fair..

A. Yes.

Q. … his behaviour is even beginning to him putting his food on the floor and eating it off the floor to staff clearly seem more comfortable around him. How is that improvement happening?

A. By the medication treatment.

Q. Okay. And what medication was he on – he was on olanazapine at that point, is he?

A. It looks here like he was on olanzapine, 30 milligrams and loxapine, 25 milligrams.³⁸

Court Response: “Take Counseling as Directed”

80Mr. Williams was subsequently sentenced for assaulting the man in the wheelchair. Sentence imposed on May 17, 2011 included six months of probation with a condition to attend counseling for mental health issues. He was arrested for assault two months later, pled guilty after 9 days, and placed on a year-long probation without counseling conditions. By September 6, 2011 he was arrested again for assault and sentenced 20 days later. That probation required him to take counseling as directed for mental health issues.

81Dr. Wilkie’s earlier report made insightful, on-target recommendations to protect public safety and stabilize Mr. Williams. It does not appear that many, if any, sentencing judges were made aware of her psychiatric recommendations. While mental health issues were clearly at play, Mr. Williams’ offences were often minor and attracted little attention.

82Additionally, at times Crown/police computer systems were not current. This reflected a significant “gap” between convictions and thus periods of stability that did not, in reality, exist. Thus the Crown position, on at least one occasion, relied on that “gap” as indicative of Mr. Williams’ stability in the community.³⁹

83No one in the court system, in other words, seemed to have the full picture.

84Additionally, the limits of judicial sentencing toolboxes to address Mr. William’s mental health was clear. In imposing probation conditions about treatment, sentencing judges must rely on probation identifying appropriate counseling and enforcing failures to attend. Treatment can be recommended by a court but not, on a probation order, imposed absent consent: R. v. Rogers (1990), 1990 CanLII 432 (BC CA), 61 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (B.C.C.A.). Conditions to take medication, similarly, cannot be imposed on probation absent consent: R. v. L.(J.J.), (2001), 2001 MBCA 21, 152 C.C.C.(3d) 572 (Man. C.A.).

85Thus, courts kept recommending Mr. Williams take treatment as directed by probation. Probation was limited by what information they received about Mr. Williams. Documentary exhibits suggest probation was not quickly informed about all the psychiatric recommendations piling up. Additionally, probation had often been, as the Crown’s letter observed, accepting Mr. Williams’ refusal to take counseling as dispositive of the issue.

86An October 2010 closing summary note summed up the problem with relying on

Mr. Williams’ consent to treatment:

At the time (referring to Oct. 8, 2008) the client was assessed as being fit to stand trial…it was recommended that he participate in a further psychiatric assessment and treatment with antipsychotic medication however it was identified by the psychiatrist that the client would be adverse to these recommendations and likely reject these interventions. In meeting with this writer regarding these matters the client rejected all recommendations…

This client made no progress during supervision and as a result of his mental state future community supervision is not seen as being suitable.⁴⁰

87Mr. Williams predictably incurred criminal charges, often with bizarre factual elements. In early March 2012 he committed the mischief offence where he got kicked off a streetcar and broke a stranger’s headlight. He was later arrested for defecating in an apartment stairwell. Sentence for both events included a probation condition to take counseling as recommended.

88By April 2012, he was told to leave another stairwell and responded by buzzing everyone in the building and then smashing a bottle against a window. When arrested, he deliberately smashed his own head against a property locker. He managed to plead guilty the next day and, again, escape close analysis into his situation.

89Panhandling aggressively at Yonge and Dundas in May 2012, Mr. Williams was swearing and swinging his arms out at people. He pled guilty, in August 2012, to Cause Disturbance. The resulting probation order instructed he take counseling as directed by probation.

90Summer and fall 2012 saw the same cycle repeat. Police brought him into hospital in June and August, 2012, due to his violent and bizarre behaviour. August 26, 2012 he was screaming and acting violent on the TTC, leading to a charge of Cause Disturbance. A few weeks later, he pled guilty to randomly kicking a stranger’s bike, which caused that person injury. He was ordered to take counseling as directed.

Short-Term Coercive Treatment: the Sixty-Day Treatment Order

91On September 27, Mr. Williams was trespassing in an apartment building lobby and told to move along. He responded by smashing a payphone receiver on the street. The same day, he was brought to court and two Form 48 assessment orders issued, with the second in force for 30 days and sending Mr. Williams to the Brief Assessment Unit (B.A.U.).

92The timeframe permitted an in-depth assessment by Dr. Swayze, who set out his observations of October 16, 2012:

Should the court be of the opinion that Mr. Wiliams is unfit to stand trial, I would strongly encourage the Crown to give consideration to an application for a Treatment Order. This gentleman presents most recently as acutely psychotic. He is behaviourally dyscontrolled, aggressive and violent. His fitness is severely impacted, flowing from his acute psychosis. He has been subject to a Treatment Order as recent as February of 2011 and returned to a state of fitness.

Given his recent presentation, that being grossly unfit, it is my opinion that he would not return to a state of fitness without treatment. Further, he has received treatment with antipsychotic medications with good affect, and returned to fitness in a period not exceeding 60 days….

…Mr. Williams’ presentation on October 16th, 2012 is of a gentleman grossly unwell, clearly not capable to consent to psychiatric treatments, rejecting such treatments…

Should the court, however, be of the opinion that Mr. Williams is in fact fit to stand trial, he should be directed towards active and aggressive psychiatric treatment, including the use of antipsychotic medications. .. this gentleman appears to be entirely estranged from the community at large, with no housing, finances, or supports. He would benefit with assistance across a wide range of domains.⁴¹

93On October 22, 2012 Mr. Williams was placed on probation with a condition to take counseling and see a mental health court worker about finding accommodations.

Short Term Coercive Treatment: Use of the Mental Health Act

94This pattern of psychotic symptoms erupting and unpredictable, violent behaviour continued in 2012-2013. Assessing psychiatrists continued to call out for intervention that did not rest on Mr. Williams’ own consent to medication: either because he wouldn’t, or he couldn’t.

95Authorities began to use the Mental Health Act (MHA) as a solution more frequently. In early 2012, Mr. Williams was brought in on a Form 2 by the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT). Mr. Williams’ astute probation officer at the time, Laura Klaehn, had asked them to execute it. The day before, he told her he felt like “he was going to clock someone”. She immediately took action through the MHA.

96After he was hospitalized, a psychiatrist assessed him as likely schizophrenic and reported back:

He is not interested in treatment but is willing to see me if he has to … I will follow him for a time but if he remains uninterested in treatment I will likely refer him back to you.⁴²

97At St. Michael’s in January 2012, after exhibiting violent behaviour, Mr. Williams expressed paranoid thoughts like “the FBI are after me”. The next month in emergency at Toronto East General Hospital, he was crawling the floor around on all fours. But he quickly and consistently stabilized each time, and declined offers of further voluntary hospitalization.

98The short-term nature of the MHA forms was proving problematic. Upon stabilizing at Toronto East, he was discharged with the treating doctor reporting:

We decided to keep the patient until his form ran out and tried to persuade him to stay, all the time assessing him for certifiability. We did not find him certifiable for any immediate reasons and he was uninterested in staying for voluntary treatment…my recommendation to the probation office was that they recommend to the judge when he comes up for his next hearings that he have a month long assessment at a Forensic Unit and perhaps ultimate diversion with a social worker on his case for outpatient management.⁴³

99Similarly, in June 2012 he was admitted to St. Michael’s on another form: police found him violently swinging at random pedestrians. He had to be discharged five days later, because after treatment the form’s factual basis no longer existed. Mr. Williams predictably refused voluntary hospitalization and “it was determined that coercive treatment would not be warranted at this time.”

100On March 10, 2013, police brought Mr. Williams into Mount Sinai Hospital as an “Emotionally Disturbed Person” or “EDP”. He had been threatening people on the street, swinging his arms aggressively near pedestrians, and walking into traffic.

101A Mental Health Act admission followed. That Form 1 asserted Mr. Williams’ inability to care for himself, and the concern that he would cause serious bodily harm to others. He “seem[ed] psychotic at current time” and was “psychotic and guarded”.⁴⁴ Two days later, Mr. Williams had stabilized on medication and was discharged.

102Predictably, he refused more hospitalization on a voluntary basis. Dr. Joannou observed:

He refuses to engage meaningfully in any sustained treatment or supports. He would benefit from being on the ORB in the future where support could be imposed on him.⁴⁵

103Police quickly returned Mr. Williams back to CAMH on another Form 1 on April 7 2013. This time he was agitated, physically aggressive, verbally aggressive, and had kicked a dog. Police characterized his behaviour as “strange” and a “danger to others and self”. He was involuntarily admitted to hospital (on a Form 4) on April 10, 2013.

104The admission report, authored by Dr. Ginsberg, observed:

…he has never been found NCR and has never been on an ORB and has never had treatment enforced” … he is unfortunately not workable and likely untreatable unless somewhere along the line he is found NCR of an offense and placed under the ORB. All other attempts at treatment have failed.⁴⁶

105He quickly responded to treatment with 50 mg Loxapine. By April 11 2013, Mr. Williams was deemed to no longer present a danger to himself or others and the Form 3 was canceled. Mr. Wiliams was given a pass and told he could return to hospital if he wanted. Unsurprisingly, he did not.

106The discharge report said:

…the patient is not currently workable under the Mental Heath Act system. To detain him involuntarily and enforce treatment would provide only temporary relief of some of the symptoms, only to have the patient return to the streets without treatment or follow up once the period of detention would end. Therefore, there was no point in detaining the patient any further. He was no longer certifiable and therefore discharged from hospital. Once again, the only hope the patient has of any proper treatment plan would be to be under the ORB.⁴⁷

107On June 17, 2013, Mr. Williams was cursing out strangers on the TTC. He was arrested for more violence on July 13 2013. This time, a Toronto Community Housing constable rousted him from sleeping in a stairwell. Mr. Williams resisted, threatening to “clock” the officer in the face and clenching his fists as if to strike the officer.

108Timelines between mental instability and random violence grew shorter. A release from jail on September 15 was followed, three days later, by hospitalization because police found him kicking poles, and yelling obscenities and threats. He was aggressive with police when they detained him.

109At CAMH the next day⁴⁸, Mr. Williams was talking to himself and pointing at things that were not there. He was also, despite responding to internal stimuli, denying the presence of symptoms.

110By September 20 Mr. Williams had stabilized somewhat. CAMH personnel discharged him that same day, noting that hospitalization without “more intrusive authority such as ORB” would not assist because Mr. Williams would just refuse treatment⁴⁹.

Long-Term Coercive Treatment: the Community Treatment Order

111In early 2014 a Form 42 issued⁵⁰, which mandated a psychiatric assessment under s. 15 of the Mental Health Act. Police brought him in, because he had been throwing bottles at cars and banging on business windows. But when Mr. Williams expressed his lack of consent, he was discharged.

112Ms. Klaehn was a collateral contact the hospital reached out to, and she explained the cycle they were stuck in:

…continues to find himself in conflict with the law, states that he is not interested in treatment counseling etc. She states that the pt ‘reports consistently, on the right day, at the right time. She consistently encourages patient to comply with conditions that he seek treatment for substance abuse (THC) and psychiatric illness, which the pt continually declines…he has not been through mental health diversion, however has seen 2 psychiatrists through her office. But the pt is not interested in engaging in treatment, ‘there’s not much they can do with him.’ She states that he reports Q 2 weeks, ‘almost completely consistently’.⁵¹

113Six weeks later⁵², he was inexplicably punching out at pedestrians again, coming close to striking one person in the face. He was also taken to St. Michael’s Hospital, where one physician wisely focused on Mr. Williams’ capacity to make treatment decisions.

114Mr. Williams managed to, the next day, plead guilty to assault and fail to keep peace. Ten days later, he was back in hospital for acting bizarre and violently. Toxicology screens tested negative for substances. This time, Mr. Williams’ capacity to consent to treatment was assessed and things meaningfully changed for the better:

• As per the discharge summary from St. Michael’s Hospital, “[a]fter 2 weeks on Risperidone, his aggressive behaviour and threatening behaviour subsided, and he was transitioned to the general ward without incident”.

• Once the Form 1 period was complete, Mr. Williams told the treating physician he felt good, that he wanted to leave, and that he did not need treatment;

• The treating physician, Dr. David Robertson, told Mr. Williams he would not be permitted to leave hospital before getting treatment;

• He was admitted to hospital involuntarily on a Form 3 (dated March 16, 2024);

• A Form 33 issued, in which Dr. Robertson determined Mr. Williams was “Not Mentally Capable to Consent to Treatment of Mental Disorder under the Health Care Consent Act” (Form A). Mr. Williams did not contest this;

• The Public Guardian and Trustee was appointed as Substitute Decision Maker over Mr. Williams’ treatment decisions for a period of six months, until Sept. 30, 2014. Mr. Williams did not contest this;

• The Public Guardian and Trustee provided informed consent to treat Mr. Williams with oral Risperidone for the day and with Consta (Risperidone in Long-Acting Injectable form or LAI/depo). Mr. Williams complied with this medication requirement;

• On March 28, 2014, Mr. Williams’ involuntary admission was renewed to April 28, 2014;

• On April 9, 2013, Mr. Williams was assessed as incapable of making financial decisions, because he did “not appreciate that his refusal to have an income deleteriously impacts his health, safety, and those of others”. Mr. Williams did not contest this;

• With those protections now in place, Mr. Williams was discharged from hospital on April 17, 2014 with a May 2 appointment for his next LAI injection scheduled. He was “casually dressed in clean clothing…had shaven….He was not aggressive towards staff or co-patients. He could acknowledge our diagnosis of schizophrenia, but had low insight in this regard.”⁵³

115Effecting a Community Treatment Plan was the next step. Dr. Wilkie explained community treatment plans and areas they generally target:

…community treatment orders are provisioned through the Mental Health Act for individuals to receive mandated treatment in the community…. One has to have been in hospital for 30 days or on more than two occasions, or they have to have been on a prior community treatment order. An individual has to meet criteria for a Form 1 such that they could not be managed in the community without the community treatment order in place.

The community treatment order enables what’s called a community treatment plan or the CTP to be in place. And the community treatment plan is really – can be seen as the condition by which the person can be managed in the community. That usually entails the identification of a physician; it usually entails the identification of a team; and usually it entails the medication that the individual must adhere to in the community.

There can become other parts of a community treatment plan, but I would say those usually form the crux of the community treatment plan. And then, when the person is discharged into the community, if they fail to adhere to the plan, usually around taking the medication, they can be brought to hospital so that the medication is provided to them.⁵⁴

116In mid-May 2014, Mr. Williams tried to revert back to old patterns. He declined help from his ACT team and refused treatment. But the Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) brought him to hospital for his injection. Mr. Williams did not resist and agreed to go with the team to hospital. He also explained his fear of needles and a preference for oral medication.

117At the end of the same month, Mr. Williams showed up to St. Mike’s hospital to get his own medication. When he was asked why he didn’t wait for his ACT team to bring his medication, he replied that his preference was to attend himself for the injection – which he kept getting, despite his fear of needles – at the hospital. He promised he would keep coming.

118Mr. Williams began staying at Seaton House. He was co-operating with supports to try and secure more stable housing. In summer 2014, he briefly moved back in with his great-aunt Olive. This ended when he refused to take treatment for cannabis use and was told to leave.

119Connection with a half-sister was re-established. She took him in briefly, while his social worker attempted to find him housing. August 2014 reports from this sister said his mental health was stable, due to taking injectable medication for his schizophrenia.

120Dr. Wilkie testified about this period of time:

Q. You said he was much better when he was seeing an ACT team. And just for the record, what is ACT?

A. It’s an assertive community treatment team. And so that was the period of time when he was in the community on the community treatment order and taking an injectable medication and residing in a structured living environment. And it was during that period of time that it was noted by the people working with him that there was a noted improvement in his overall functioning.⁵⁵

Q. And in what ways did you see from the [indiscernible] that there was some improvement in him?

A. Although this is documented in the record, but he is interacting with them. This starts when he’s in the hospital when he agrees to housing; he agrees – this is when he goes on [ODSP] – he starts to get money; he’s interacting with them in ways that he hadn’t before; his mental state appears more stable during those initial times that he was on the CTO. ⁵⁶

121Housing remained a challenge. Mr. Williams moved to a rooming house and stayed for about six months before leaving, due to threats made against him. Shelters were used on occasion, but Mr. Williams never felt safe in the shelter system. His FOCUS worker continued to work at this and Mr. Williams slept where he could.

122For the most part, Mr. Williams remained psychiatrically stable on the Community Treatment Order. There were two instances of police interaction. On one occasion in 2015, police brought him to hospital. He had not taken his medication, appeared intoxicated – likely by cannabis - and had acting been “bizarre”.

123Another time in August 2015, Mr. Williams was taken by police to jail. He had been sleeping on a bench in A&W at 1 am when police tried to roust him. He punched an officer in the chest once, leaving no injury. He told police afterwards that he did it because he needed a place to stay that night and wanted to go to jail. He pled guilty to assault the same day and was fined $10.

124That August 2015 assault was his only substantive arrest for approximately two years. Overall, the random acts of violence had stopped, by operation of the Community Treatment Order coupled with a substitute decision maker.

Unhoused, Unmedicated, and Unstable Again

125But by March 2016, things were falling apart. He had not picked up his medication, had not connected with his sister, had not picked up his disability cheque. Police brought him into emergency, where Mr. Williams asked if he could live at hospital forever because he was homeless.

126An assessing physician said, “Lionel remains insightless into his MH condition” and assessed him as “low risk to others only so long as he receives IM antipsychotic at regular prescribed intervals”.⁵⁷

127Mr. Williams had a fractured hand when he was brought in, which he refused treatment for. He told doctors that he felt unsafe in the shelter system, so he was homeless. Mr. Williams said police would have to bring him in for continued injections, and that he did not want to cooperate with the FOCUS team. He did not believe he was schizophrenic and felt the medication had no effect on him.

128The PG&T subsequently provided Substitute Decision Maker (SDM) consent to a medication change, from Risperidone to Invega (Paliperidone). Police brought him on Form 47s in May and July, 2016. Each time Mr. Williams was compliant, and said he preferred to be brought to St. Mike’s for his medication:

Pt calm and cooperative. States doesn’t like the people at

FOCUS, prefers to wait for police to bring to SMH.⁵⁸

129However, by late August 2016, Mr. Williams had left Toronto on a bus. He was found in small town Quebec, claiming he had felt unsafe in Toronto. He agreed to getting his injection but said he wanted to move to Quebec.

130He was brought back to Toronto and predictably disappeared again. His intent in fleeing, he told Dr. Wilkie, was to get away from the medication and his Community Treatment Order. Dr. Wilkie offered her thoughts on why Mr. Williams fled:

…in my view he presented in part at times in the community as being overwhelmed by the many different things that are being asked of him and that at times in the past, in order to cope with some of those challenges that were sort of overwhelming his current resources, he felt it was better to disengage, to leave, to leave housing, to leave his supports.

And so I think that – that would certainly need to be known and understood by anyone who was supervising him in the community, to both be able to provide assistance and supervision in those areas.⁵⁹

131Mr. Williams resurfaced in Moncton, New Brunswick. He has explained he got there by hitchhiking, arriving May 2017. He incurred numerous Criminal Code and provincial offence convictions in New Brunswick, mostly for non-violent offences. He admittedly hung out with “drug dealers”. He had 334 contacts with police during this time, most of which I inferred related to panhandling, trespassing, and being an incessant public nuisance.

132Certainly his refusal to stop panhandling led to many more Criminal Code convictions, as well as provincial offences. But there were offences of violence in New Brunswick too, and elements of the offences committed in 2020 and 2021 echoed back to his behaviour when untreated on Toronto streets.

133His New Brunswick criminal convictions showed this:

• February 19 2018 he was acting bizarrely inside a Tim Horton’s, including standing on a table. He struck a female employee in the chest with his elbow when she tried to get him to leave;

• March 3 2018 he was on an undertaking or peace bond to keep the peace, and breached it by sleeping on a McDonald’s floor and refusing to leave;

• June 7 2018 at 6:45 am he was sleeping in a BMO vestibule and did not leave, committing mischief;

• June 14 2018 he shouted threats at an unknown female on the street while on a peace bond;

• In early 2018 he was panhandling at a grocery store when a woman told him to “get a job”. He screamed in her face, punched her on the shoulder, and when she called 911, said “I’m going to slit your throat”;

• During sentencing for the above matter, Crown counsel said police had over 300 contacts with him since he arrived in New Brunswick, and wanted a condition for him not to panhandle in Moncton. This was imposed;

• April 13 2019 he breached his probation by panhandling;

• April 15 2019 he breached his probation by panhandling;

• May 21 2019, he breached his probation by panhandling;

• May 26 2019, he breached his probation by panhandling;

• October 16 2019, he breached his probation by panhandling;

• In fall 2019, he breached his probation by panhandling but also said “I’ll cut you” and “I’ll fuck you up” when an employee asked him to leave;

• March 26 2020 at 5:19 am he refused to leave the vestibule of a CIBC when told, saying it was cold. The same day he was panhandling and refused to leave;

• March 30 2020 at 3:30 am he assaulted a male security guard by striking him in the face. The security guard was telling him to leave a building lobby Mr. Williams was sleeping in;

• April 14 2020 he used a debit card from someone’s lost

wallet to buy $125 of product from a store;

• April 15 2020, he punched a woman in the back so hard it caused her weeks of pain. He had been sleeping in between entrance doors of an apartment building;

• On an unknown date in 2020 he swung at a female police officer who was trying to arrest him, he continually resisted, called her racial insults. His punch to her face caused her injury under her right eye but nothing was broken;

• February 11 2021 Mr. Williams was sleeping in a building when asked to leave. He stood up, started yelling, and struck the male complainant on the jaw;

• February 24 2021 he failed to appear at court;

• March 1 2021 he was sleeping in a hallway and said “I’m going to slice your throat” to the complainant;

• March 22 2021 a woman was leaving an apartment building where he had been lying on the floor, when Mr. Williams punched her on the back very hard;

• March 29 2021 he was sleeping in a building entrance, and refused to leave;

• March 30 2021 he failed to appear at court;

• At some point between April 2021 and October 4, 2021 Mr. Williams was hospitalized at Restigouche Hospital, a mental health facility. We have no documents to understand why he was there, how long he was there, or what treatment he got there;

• February 5 2022 he urinated in the vestibule of a TD bank and briefly followed, while rapping violent lyrics, an employee who told him to get out;

• February 28 2022 he was aggressively panhandling and refused to leave the premises;

• March 1 2022 he failed to appear at court;

• March 9 2022 he was aggressively panhandling and refused to leave the premises.

134In 2016, Mr. Williams has previously said, he started using crack cocaine. He also told Dr. Wilkie he started using crack in 2019 and was using daily by 2023. We have no medical documentation to support his own claim. But if his own self-report is accepted as accurate, Mr. Williams began using crack cocaine while in New Brunswick.

135New Brunswick RCMP bought Mr. Williams a train ticket back to Toronto, apparently as a means to stop him from committing crime there. When he arrived back in Toronto, the supports he built up during the Community Treatment Order were gone and not reinstated.

136Again untreated, homeless, and without supports, Mr. Wiliams committed three serious random assaults in late 2022 and early 2023.

Random Assaults of Female Pedestrians

137Three assaults, all committed randomly against different women, happened in quick succession and without rational explanation. The timeframe of these offences was concerningly short compared to past patterns: the second committed ten days after the first, and the third committed 46 days after that.

138As per R. v. Williams, 2023 ONCJ 238 at paras. 3-5:

On the 27th of November Mr. Williams entered Dundas subway station and punched K.G. and walked away. T.T.C. identified Mr. Williams by video surveillance. Mr. Williams was seen later that day standing on Dundas St. and was arrested. He was eventually released on a form 10 undertaking.

On 1 December 2022 Ms. A.G. was at a Tim Horton's outlet at Dundas and Jarvis. Mr. Williams was there too, talking gibberish. Ms. G. did not speak to him. She collected her order and left the store. As she was walking away from the store on the north side of Dundas St. Mr. Williams ran at her from behind and punched her in the head causing her to fall into a live lane of traffic. She required no medical attention. Mr. Williams was located in a local shelter, arrested, held for a show cause hearing and released on his own undertaking. Ms. G. required no medical treatment from the incident a video of this incident was played at sentencing. It is disturbing.

On Jan 22, 2023 at 3:00 am Ms. N.L. was walking her dog in Regent Park. Mr. Williams approached her and asked her for money but she refused. Mr. Williams followed her, blocked her path, and then punched her with closed fist. … He was arrested and has been custody ever since.

139The December 1 video was tendered on this application too. It showed how sudden, unprovoked, and forceful Mr. Williams can be. His target was a random woman who did nothing to him. She did not even know he was there. He attacked her from behind, punching her with such force she was knocked off the sidewalk and into live downtown traffic.

140The sentencing judge ordered a pre-sentence report (PSR) to help him understand Mr. Williams, who was insistently self-represented. The PSR was surprisingly brief and not at all insightful. Given the volume of historical probation and court records tendered on this application, the PSR fell far short of what was needed to address public safety and gain insight into Mr. Williams’ offending.

141As per paras. 8 and 10, Rose J. commented on this significant shortcoming:

I asked for a Pre-sentence report for Mr. Williams. It is brief and only minimally helpful. There is no history of his dealings in contact with probation personnel despite having been the subject of several probation orders. It is unclear to me from reading the pre-sentence report that probation staff are fully engaged with the prospect of having to supervise Mr. Williams….

Mr. Williams self-reports as being diagnosed with schizophrenia and is clear that he will not take medication. There is no case history in the pre-sentence report and no follow up plan. He confirmed his reluctance to get treatment for schizophrenia in court with me. Apparently he is not under the care of any mental health professions. Apparently he is “… receptive to the idea of attending for anger management counseling”. As the pre- sentence report writer says, “the probation officer is able to arrange anger management counseling for Mr. Williams as long as he agrees to attend and participate.”

142In conclusion, at paras. 21-22 Rose J. prophetically said:

His reluctance to get help for psychological issues leads me to find that Mr. Williams is at a high risk to re-offend and violently re-offend….if Mr. Williams does not get help and stop re-offending violently, he may well appear before the court in the future facing a long term or dangerous offender application. There is every reason to believe Mr. Williams will attack a stranger violently at some time after he is released from custody. This is deeply troubling. With that said, I can only impose a custodial sentence which is permitted by law.

What is frustrating for the Court is that there are limited options available on sentencing which will reduce the likelihood of re-offending. Probation and ancillary orders will go some distances, but they will not provide the level of supervision which will significantly reduce the risk to the public by Mr. Williams released from custody. Mr. Williams is homeless, has schizophrenia, and acts out violently toward strangers. He has generally little ability to comply with the court orders meant to keep the public safe and rehabilitate him. What is needed is a more robust supervision and help program for those offenders who have some combination of a history of violence, mental health challenges, homelessness and substance abuse issues. Currently all that is available is regular probation.

143On June 6, 2023, Mr. Williams was sentenced to twelve months. Seven months had been served in presentence custody, leaving five months to serve. He served it at the Toronto South Detention Centre, instead of being sent to a provincial reformatory with access to targeted programming and treatment. Once released, Mr. Williams was on probation with stringent reporting conditions.

144Five months later, Mr. Williams committed the predicate offence in this case. He randomly attacked a woman, a stranger to him, by throwing a rock at her head. I do not know the precise date he was released from custody. But clearly, he was not in the community long before re-offending violently and in a similar way.

145It happened on November 1, 2023, when a 22-year old female student was walking alone downtown. Mr. Williams made eye contact with her, spoke some “gibberish”, and then approached.

146The victim got nervous. She took off her headphones and picked up her walking pace. Mr. Williams reacted by running toward her. Then he threw a rock at her head. It connected. She fell to the ground and Mr. Williams left the scene.

147The victim was left with a concussion, a laceration requiring stitches, and significant emotional trauma. This was, on my view of the evidence, the most significant injury that Mr. Williams’ assaults ever caused. That said, he has only escaped causing more harm to others by sheer luck.

148Mr. Williams pled guilty to assault with a weapon, admitting he threw the rock at his victim’s head. This is the predicate offence underlying the within application. There is no dispute that it falls under the rubric of a “serious personal injury offence” within the meaning of s. 752(a) of the Criminal Code.

149Mr. Williams has given inconsistent, illogical reasons why he committed the predicate offence. He told Dr. Wilkie he was unsuccessfully panhandling, got frustrated at the lack of response, and threw a rock at a girl’s head. He felt this would warn customers at the Dollar Store to give him money next time, and it would “ease the pain.”⁶⁰

150He also told Dr. Wilkie he hoped throwing the rock at her would help things get better, so he could get some money. Meanwhile, he told Dr. Penney he was in an “uproar”, that he was upset police had locked him up for so long and at pedestrians for not giving him money:

I was getting quite frustrated. I took matters into my own hands. I chased a lady up the street. She ran away and then I went after another lady and threw a rock at her head.⁶¹

151Dr. Penney noted a lack of insight into the reasons for his offending. She reported, “When asked, Mr. Williams had difficulty explaining the connection between his actions towards the victim (as well as the three prior female victims) and his frustrations stemming from his situation and his anger towards the police”. She added that “he expressed remorse for this offending, stated he has changed his attitude and will not let this happen again.”⁶²

152After arrest, Mr. Williams denied being intoxicated and he denied psychotic symptoms. But Dr. Wilkie testified that the behaviour he exhibited could be consistent with him experiencing psychotic symptoms:

Q. But many times [indiscernible] jail records and the health records where he is denying psychotic symptoms, but a person is observing what they would view as psychotic symptoms?

A. I agree.

Q. And so, is it possible again what we were talking schizophrenia that that may be an indicator [indiscernible] he was – that that was a symptom being expressed of a psychosis going on at the time?

A. Yes.⁶³

153She subsequently added that his unkept, disheveled state proximate to the arrest and his admission of being unmedicated were both meaningful:

A. … their ability to engage in self-care activities, that assessment can be complicated by someone who's unhoused, and may have difficulty with regards to access to some of those resources. So, it shouldn't be taken in isolation, but I would say it is a meaningful marker, at times, of an individual's mental state.

Q. … that he told the nurse that presumably before he was in jail, he wasn't taking medication. Is that of significance, assuming it's correct?

A. It is.

Q. And is…

A. So, again, when Mr. Williams does not take medication, he has a history of exhibiting more symptoms of his primary psychiatric disorder of schizophrenia.⁶⁴

154In jail after arrest, Mr. Williams told a nurse he only takes medications while in jail. He was guarded, evasive, evoked illogical thought processes, and fearful of sharing a cell. This was his presentation in jail on November 20. On November 25 he refused to meet with a doctor.

155By the end of 2023 he started to take medication, voluntarily, in the Toronto South Detention Centre. He reported to Dr. Wilkie that he did this, in essence, to have some brief human interaction with nurses who came by on medication rounds.

156But by October 2025, Mr. Williams started to decline medication. When nurses came around with medication, he told them they were there at the wrong time. He complained he did not like the medication, and that it had no effect on him.

157Soon after that, bizarre behaviour erupted. He was seen licking the floor, rubbing his teeth against the floor, and playing with feces. He lunged at a psychiatrist and both threatened and “attacked” a correctional officer⁶⁵. His hygiene was notably poor and he appeared internally preoccupied.

158The psychiatrist at TSDC concluded he was actively psychotic and had him hospitalized on a Form 1 into CAMH. There, the Form 1 hospitalization evolved into a Form 4 admission. His bizarre, erratic behaviour continued and included throwing objects and threatening staff. He had to be restrained and secluded.

159But with continued anti-psychotic treatment, Mr. Williams stabilized to the point that the evidentiary basis for the Form had dissipated. His behaviour improved. His engagement with others improved. His self-care habits improved. He was discharged back to the TSDC.

160As stated previously, Mr. Williams has served all his carceral sentences in various remand centres, including the Toronto South Detention Centre. He has been at the TSDC since November 2023, pending the DO application result.

161Dr. Wilkie agreed that the multi-level forms of intervention needed to try and help Mr. Williams have not been offered to him in the past, because of the fact that Mr. Williams has served all of his sentences in the form of presentence custody.⁶⁶

Expert Evidence

162Dr. Wilkie and Dr. Penney testified viva voce, and their reports were made substantive exhibits. Dr. Wilkie was qualified to give opinion evidence in the area of forensic psychiatry, assessment of violent offenders, and assessment of risk. Psychologist Dr. Penney was qualified to open in the areas of cognitive assessments and risk assessments. Their respective qualifications were not contested.

163While the credibility and reliability of both witnesses was not argued by either party, I will place some conclusions here. I drew the same conclusion with respect to both witnesses. They were both exceptionally credible and reliable. Their testimony was capable of bearing significant weight and received it.

164Each witness was careful, measured, and balanced. I perceived no bias accorded either to prosecution or defence. I concluded that both witnesses were careful not to exaggerate or stretch their conclusions. Both took care not to overstep the boundaries of permissible opinion evidence. The historical evidentiary foundations they relied upon was confirmed as accurate.

165In short, both Dr. Wilkie and Dr. Penney were impressive witnesses. I accepted their testimony and written evidence as true, accurate, and free from prejudice or bias.

Relevant Diagnoses: Intellectual Disability

166Dr. Penney conducted psychological testing to assess Mr. Williams’ “current cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal functioning, and provide further evaluation of his psychological symptoms”. His cognitive function had never before been assessed.

167On May 22, 2025, she administered the WAIS-IV, a cognitive functioning test. Mr. Williams’ overall result on the WAIS-IV was a provisional diagnosis of intellectual disability:

…when interpreted alongside his performance on the WRAT-5, the current results from the WAIS-IV are suggestive of significant cognitive loss secondary to the onset and/or course of his mental illness.

Taken together, results of this testing suggest that Mr. Wiliams experiences significant deficits in his intellectual abilities and shows weaknesses across both verbal and non-verbal domains. While there were some circumscribed areas of strength (e.g., in individual sub-tests tapping his general fund of knowledge and visual-perceptual processing speed), findings of this nature are consistent with an intellectual disability diagnosis.⁶⁷

168Dr. Penney added that Mr. Williams was compliant with the testing, despite some struggles that foreshadowed test results:

He willingly completed the psychological tests administered to him, but was unable to complete self-report personality testing. Mr. Williams stated that the items on this questionnaire were ‘too confusing’, and it was apparent that he was not able to grasp the meaning of several items even with some assistance from the writer.⁶⁸

169Dr. Wilkie’s report defined intellectual developmental disorders (formerly called intellectual disability) as:

… characterized by deficits in general mental abilities, such as reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience. The deficits results in impairments of adaptive functioning, such that the individual fails to meet standards of personal independence and social responsibility in one or more aspects of daily life including communication, social participation, academic or occupational functioning, and personal independence at home or in community settings. Individuals with mild intellectual developmental disorder can be immature or concrete and social interactions, and have difficulty perceiving social cues. They can evidence difficulties in executive function (for example, planning, strategizing, priority setting) and lack cognitive flexibility. Reading and money management can be impaired period they likely require support in complex daily living tasks and navigating decision-making in vocational, personal care, and social situations.⁶⁹

170Mr. Williams’ cognitive limitations, in addition to past trauma and instability, helped Dr. Penney explain his past rejection of supports as well as controls needed around future risk:

Mr. Williams’ response to community supervision has been inconsistent. Although there were periods of time where he demonstrated reasonably good reporting habits to probation, he also incurred several charges for failing to comply with the terms of probation, and accumulated new charges while bound by probation orders. Most recently, Mr. Williams engaged in the assault of two women while he was on release for his assault of the first female victim; further, the index offense (November 2023) occurred just 2 months after he was released from custody and while he was bound by a probation order. Overall, this pattern of offending suggests that few appreciable gains have been made in the domains of risk outlined above.

Mr. Williams also has a history of refusing to participate in counseling or treatment programs offered to him, nor to partake in psychological or psychoeducational assessments. He appears to hold negative and distrustful views of treatment providers and values his freedom above all else.

At the same time, however, Mr. Williams’s intellectual limitations, described above, must be considered to properly contextualize his past and present ability to comply with and benefit from therapeutic intervention. In the future, any recommended programs must be suitably matched to his abilities, and service providers made aware of his limitations.⁷⁰

[emphasis added]

171Historical CAS records had described Mr. Williams as having average or above average intellect as a child/youth. This apparent cognitive decline, Dr. Wilkie said, could be linked to the untreated schizophrenia and substance abuse:

When contrasted with the pattern of results generated from this assessment, this suggests a degree of cognitive decline secondary to major mental illness and, relatedly, chronic substance use. This is also largely consistent with the research literature demonstrating significant and widespread impairments in neurocognitive functioning and social cognition (i.e., the mental processes by which people interpret and respond to others’ behavior) often associated with untreated psychotic disorder.

Mr. Williams has also struggled in several areas of adaptive function, most notably his ability to manage his basic personal care and hygiene when in the community, pursue supports related to housing or vocational opportunities, and maintain stable and supportive relationships. Because of Mr. Williams position of isolation in the community, it is also not possible to fully substantiate the scope and severity of his deficits in adaptive functioning (e.g., from the perspective of a family member or friend). Impractical terms, these results suggest that Mister Williams will encounter difficulty navigating day-to-day demands in his environment, including expressing himself effectively, understanding information presented to him, remembering and processing information, and planning and organizing himself efficiently. He will require ongoing supports and assistance to manage community supervision requirements.⁷¹

172This provisional diagnosis of intellectual disability was, I found, of import. It framed a context for Mr. Williams’ non-compliance with treatment programs, unwillingness to accept his mental health diagnoses, failure to learn from past experiences, and inability to change harmful patterns.

Relevant Diagnoses: Schizophrenia

173Dr. Wilkie, like many psychiatrists before her, diagnosed Mr. Williams as schizophrenic:

….he evidences a primary psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, with lengthy periods of untreated psychosis; his psychotic symptoms are likely perpetuated by substance use, and stressors including lack of housing and interpersonal support.⁷²

174This diagnosis, which I fully accept as accurate, means he:

suffers from symptoms of psychosis…the presence of delusions, hallucinations, grossly disorganized thought and behaviour, or some combination of these. Social and occupational decline are often prominent, as are a diminution of their motivation and self-care.

The mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia is antipsychotic medication. This tends to ameliorate or ablate the more florid symptoms of psychosis in most individuals. Once this medication has had the opportunity to achieve this effect, multidisciplinary psychosocial rehabilitation is generally instituted to treat residual symptoms. The course of illness may be adversely affected by psychosocial stress, an unstructured living situation, alcohol or street drug use, and noncompliance with pharmacotherapeutic treatment...

…over the years, Mr. Williams has been assessed by multiple health professionals, in EDs, during hospital admissions and outpatient treatment, and jails, with a primary psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, given observed symptoms of responding to internal stimuli disorganized thoughts and behaviour, affective lability, and apparent paranoia. At times, he was mute and lacked engagement with assessors and, thus, the content of suspected delusions was elusive. Generally, he has denied psychotic symptoms, although he was repeatedly assessed as less internally preoccupied, with more affective and behavioural stability, when taking anti-psychotic medication.⁷³

175Dr. Wilkie observed Mr. Williams’ long history of untreated psychosis, attributable to his refusal of medication treatment. His lack of insight into his major mental illness may, itself, be due to that mental illness but “is likely also impacted by broader cognitive rigidity and deficits in executive functioning”. Substance abuse likely worsens his psychotic symptoms, as do stressors like lack of stable housing and the absence of interpersonal supports.

176When medication treatment has been presented as his choice, Mr. Williams has consistently declined. He was successfully and involuntarily medicated over most of the Community Treatment order timeframe. In jail pending this application, Mr. Williams took medication voluntarily for a long period of time – essentially, because it gave him human interaction. But he has consistently maintained that the medication has no effect on him, and that he does not have schizophrenia.

177Dr. Wilkie testified that that denying a diagnosis of schizophrenia is common, given the stigma attached to having a serious mental disorder. Individuals do not want to accept this type of diagnosis. Additionally, an aspect of schizophrenia can be lacking insight into the fact that one has schizophrenia. Refusing to take medication may be part of this lack of insight⁷⁴. So, too, may cognitive deficits.

Relevant Diagnoses: Substance Use Disorder

178Mr. Williams has admitted addiction to an illicit and a licit substance: crack cocaine and cannabis. There is little outside of his own admission to support his professed addiction to crack cocaine: urine screens done (albeit before he fled to New Brunswick) screened negative for cocaine.

179I do accept that there has been some crack cocaine use in his past. I also accept that the crack cocaine use was tied to the predicate offence, since one of Mr. Williams’ versions of this offence said he got frustrated after unsuccessfully panhandling for crack money:

Mr. Williams advised that he was in the community from September 16 to November 20, 2023. He was unhoused, and spent his time panhandling, and smoking cannabis all day. When asked if anyone was in his life at that time, he answered “the pedestrians” whom he said would give him money to buy cannabis.

Mr. Williams initially said that he was panhandling at the Dollar store on the day of the index offense, and no one was giving him money. He wanted to buy cannabis and got angry. He “picked up a rock and struck that girl in the head”. … He initially denied the incident to police, as he was concerned about having new charges.

When asked again why he hit the victim, Mr. Williams said that he was angry that he was not making money by panhandling, and he was also angry that police had arrested him the January prior and that he had spent such a long time in custody. He said he needed money to buy crack cocaine. He said that his actions that day were a warning to customers at the dollar store so that they “would know … if you don’t give me the money … you will see what will fucking happen to that person if you don’t give me the money.

When asked further why he targeted the victim, Mr. Williams said it was random. “I took matters into my own hand. I thought throwing a rock at a girl would ease the pain.” ⁷⁵

180There is no evidence to suggest that his consumption of crack cocaine is directly linked to violence. On his version, when he assaulted his victim, he was seeking money for crack as opposed to under its influence.

181But the crack cocaine use is a risk factor that cannot be ruled out or dismissed as unimportant. The amounts he says he consumes led to a diagnosis of “severe stimulant disorder” and, as Dr. Wilkie observed:

[His] drive to obtain the substance (crack) has been associated with criminal behaviour, and he has continued to use cocaine despite negative consequences on his functioning and mental state.⁷⁶

182Mr. Williams’ cannabis use is a palpably clear risk factor linked to violence. He used cannabis frequently as a youth. Later in life, during brief hospitalizations on form 1 admissions, urine screens generally screened positive for high levels of cannabinoids. Third parties (such as probation officers) have commented about the smell of cannabis coming off him at times, or his visible state of cannabis intoxication.

183Dr. Wilkie noted “certainly the research and emerging research suggests that cannabis can be a precipitant to psychosis”⁷⁷. Clearly this disorder has contributed to Mr. Williams’ instability in multiple ways. Since his youth, his cannabis use disorder has caused the loss of family supports and housing. His use has been incessant over decades and has likely caused, as Dr. Wilkie observed, a negative impact on his cognitive function, his judgment, his decision-making, and the progression of his schizophrenia.

184He has been adamant he does not wish to stop, and given the choice, he would return to cannabis (and crack use) in the community. Mr. Williams does not recognize, presuming he has the capacity to recognize, that cannabis use has done him significant harm and must stop.

185Currently, his cannabis use disorder is in remission, because he is in jail. Mr. Williams has said if made to abstain from cannabis to be released into the community he will, and if he is made to take substance use treatment, he will.

186Dr. Wilkie did not doubt his sincerity. She did, however, query whether Mr. Williams has sufficient insight into how challenging compliance will be for him. I concur with her concern.

Relevant Diagnoses: Antisocial Personality Disorder

187Unsurprisingly, given the length of his criminal record, Mr. Williams was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). The criminal behaviour he engaged in since childhood was one strong indicator. He also displayed behaviours consistent with this diagnosis: “impulsivity and anger dysregulation, which appear to flow, in person, from personality dysfunction.”⁷⁸

188The essential feature of ASPD is “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others, occurring since the age of fifteen” as indicated by three from a list of seven factors. Six were met in Mr. Williams’ case:

• Failure to conform to social norms of lawful behaviour;

• Impulsivity or a failure to plan ahead;

• Irritability and aggressiveness;

• Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;

• Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by a repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations;

• Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to, or rationalizing, having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.⁷⁹

189Mr. Williams’ ASPD has contributed to his significant criminal record, but also to some attitudes Dr. Wilkie described as “cognitive rigidity” around accepting structure and help:

…there are other beliefs and attitudes and ideas that he was about responsibilities and obligations and not wanting to live within certain environments and constraints. I think – which is not directly related to his primary psychotic disorder. I think he has – there’s a lot of cognitive rigidity around those attitudes which may be related to some of his other disorders, but I think there’s also a contribution with chronic residual psychotic symptoms that impeded his antisocial personality structure that impedes relationships with individuals who may be able to provide information and support to change those attitudes….

That his diagnosis, including antisocial personality disorder and residual symptoms of his psychosis impede his relationship with supports or workers or people who may be able to provide information and support that could change those attitudes.

…the role of medication may help but I don’t feel that psychotic symptoms alone are the cause of some of those challenges.⁸⁰

Prediction of Risk: High Risk to Violently Re-Offend

190Historical probation risk assessments (LSI), conducted in 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2024, consistently placed Mr. Williams in the “very high” range of risk for general recidivism. This was directly linked to his substance use and his refusal to engage in any type of mental health treatment.

191Additional risk assessments were administered in 2025, as part of the Crown’s dangerous offender application. Mr. Williams complied with these assessments. On the PCL-R⁸¹ he received a score of 23 out of 40 by Dr. Penney (and 26 out of 40 by Dr. Wilkie, with the difference described by Dr. Wilkie as within an accepted margin of error). Either way, the score meant:

…he displays a moderate level of psychopathic traits, with mainly elevated behavioral features of the disorder (e.g., poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, and criminal versatility). Of note, he does not exhibit prominent signs of other traits typically associated with psychopathy (e.g., glibness, grandiosity, sexual promiscuity).⁸²

192Mr. Williams scored in the 96th percentile on the VRAG-R, an assessment exclusively comprised of static risk factors designed to predict likelihood of future violence. Violent recidivism is defined as being arrested for homicide, attempted homicide, forcible confinement, assault, and sex crimes involving physical contact with a victim. It excludes property offences, weapon possession offences simpliciter, and sexual crimes with no physical contact.

193His VRAG-R score of 33 means he:

…is associated with the ninth of nine ascending categories of risk for violent recidivism. Among individuals of the VRAG-R standardization sample who were in the same risk category, 76% violently re-offended within 5 years of opportunity. Mr. Williams’ score on the VRAG-R places him in a high risk category.⁸³

[emphasis in original]

194He is high risk to re-offend violently in the future. Those in his same risk category had a 76 percent rate of violently reoffending within five years of opportunity.

195Overall, Dr. Penney and Dr. Wilkie both opined that Mr. Williams currently poses a high risk for future violent recidivism. As Dr. Penney concluded:

Based on the totality of information made available to me, my interviews with Mr. Williams and results of psychological testing, as well as the synthesis of results from the risk assessment tools used in this assessment, it is my opinion that Mr. Williams currently poses a high risk to engage in a future act of violence. It is further my opinion that he represents a high risk to offend in a non-violent manner, including further public mischief offenses and failures to abide by the terms of community supervision orders. The central risk-enhancing scenario would be one where Mr. Williams is not engaged in any form of treatment, is using substances, and is experiencing elevated frustrations stemming from housing and financial instability as he often has in the past.

It is also important to recognize that risk for violence and re-offending is dynamic; it may increase or decrease over time depending on changes to the individual and his or her environment. Mr. Williams’ level of risk over the short-term (i.e., the next 6-12 months) will be commensurate with his level of engagement and responsiveness to pharmacotherapy and intervention in the areas of substance use and anger management. A re-assessment of Mr. Williams’ salient risk factors may therefore be warranted after he has had the opportunity to engage in treatment.⁸⁴

Domains of Risk and Treatment Responsivity

196Dr. Wilkie shared the opinion that Mr. Williams is a high risk to re-offend violently. She made it clear that managing and reducing Mr. Williams’ risk to re-offend would be challenging and require a multi-faceted, targeted approach.

197Dr. Wilkie itemized these areas that would need targeted intervention to manage risk: the Major Mental Disorder and Lack of Insight; History of Violence and Antisocial Behaviours; Substance Use Problems, Living Situation; Treatment and Supervision Compliance. She opined that:

His risk cycle appears to be related to anger dysregulation and violent attitudes, substance use, chronic symptoms of schizophrenia and intermittent destabilization of his mental state, and his disregard of legal restrictions or conditions of supervision.⁸⁵

198In court, Dr. Wilkie explained the principles of the “risk - needs – responsivity” framework. This framework, utilized mainly in correctional psychiatry, helps to link risk assessment with risk management.

199The first principle is that the highest risk individuals should have the highest level of support available to them. The second principle is that any risk management plan / interventions should focus on criminogenic needs. In other words, risk management plans should not focus on things unconnected to risk.

200The third principle is responsivity. This means the plan must pay heed to specific issues that could increase that persons’ responsivity to treatment / risk management plan. Examples of such issues are learning disability / difficulties, or culturally relevant approaches. Treatment that takes these factors into account can increase the individual’s responsivity to that treatment.

201Mr. Williams’ prognosis of risk management and risk reduction is, compared to other offenders, poor due to the combination of diagnoses. But Dr. Wilkie’s report also stated that “[i]individualized, culturally relevant, trauma-informed, and more intensive, behaviorally focused, treatment and management interventions, may improve his responsivity.”

202Dr. Penney and Dr. Willkie agreed that any treatment of Mr. Williams should be approached with the risk-needs-responsivity principles in focus. Dr. Penney said that Mr. Williams’ challenges, such as his cognitive deficits, should be “woven into really all aspects of his risk management plan”.⁸⁶

203She added that to her knowledge, no past attempt to treat Mr. Williams has approached him through this lens of maximizing his responsivity:

A. …it’s helpful to think of these cognitive challenges as things that can impact someone’s responsivity to treatment. And so, that’s why, for example, in corrections and other settings, we have groups and treatment programs that are specifically designed for offenders with cognitive challenges because there – there will be, you know, different issues and issues responding to standard forms of treatment…for someone like Mr. Williams, I don’t think it would be appropriate to engage in, you know, individual talk therapy for your 50 minute session with a treatment provider. You know, that’s just not something that he’ll respond to.

Q. …have you seen evidence in the record that there’s been any sustained attempts by treatment providers to address his cognitive challenges?

A. I wouldn’t say so, no, in terms of sustained attempts to

recognize them and to – to deal with them.⁸⁷

204Both experts explained that many risk assessment tools assess static factors, meaning factors the person cannot change. But Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) tools include the assessment of dynamic factors and can be used to assess the management of risk. Dynamic factors can be targeted for change and improvement.

205The HCR-20 is one such SPJ instrument. It uses both static and dynamic factors related to violence. Violence in this context is defined as “actual, attempted, or threatened infliction of bodily harm of another person”. The HCR-20 is used:

…to structure clinical decisions about the likelihood of violence and re-offending and to inform risk-reducing treatment and management strategies.⁸⁸

206While Mr. Williams is high risk to re-offend violently, Dr. Penney opined that he exhibits some dynamic markers for risk: substance abuse, poor treatment response, and major mental health disorder symptoms.

207These three dynamic factors are the most relevant, functionally or causally, to Mr.

Williams’ risk of violent re-offending. Dr. Penney said:

Due to the mutable nature of these risk factors, they would be choice points for intervention. Efforts should focus on stabilizing Mr. Williams’ psychiatric symptoms, reducing his symptom burden, and engaging him in substance use and anger management programs. Treatment programming must also be tailored with Mr. Williams’ cognitive limitations in mind to optimize their chances of success (e.g., group-based modalities designed for offenders with intellectual disabilities).

Future interventions should incorporate basic behavioural contingencies and practical, solution-oriented interventions

that rely minimally on verbal dialogue or abstract principles. Behavioural therapies are based on learning theory, where the aim is to establish new, more functional behaviours to replace exhibiting, challenging or dysfunctional behaviour through the introduction of new contingencies of reinforcement and/or punishment. Treatment providers with expertise in behavioural therapy and learning theory would be helpful in this regard.⁸⁹

208Targeted treatment in mutable areas must be delivered in a way that enhances Mr. Williams’ responsivity. Both experts agreed this means addressing the cognitive deficits identified in testing. Both agreed this means programming should be communicated in ways that Mr. Williams can understand. Both agreed treatment and programming should rely on techniques like repetition of material and writing information down to supplement verbal communication.

209Both experts agree Mr. Williams’ results show deficits in general mental abilities like reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, learning, as well as deficits in adaptive functioning. Dr. Wilkie also referenced the childhood diagnosis of ADHD, which could result in symptoms like hyperactivity, distractibility, and inattention.

210Dr. Wilkie testified that Mr. Wiliams’ lack of past treatment engagement may be partially attributable to his cognitive deficits:

I would also say but some of his complex needs and challenges, you know, may have also contributed, both his being unhoused and homeless in the community and also some of his, what I believe to be inter-intellectual or neurodevelopmental deficits may have also contributed in the past to some of his non engagement.⁹⁰

211Even Mr. Williams’ past history of medication refusal, Dr. Wilkie said, could be linked to his cognitive deficits. She testified that refusing or accepting medication means understanding the relevant information provided about benefits and risks, and appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of medication decisions. These aspects should, she added, be part of a capacity assessment by any future treating physicians.

212Dr. Penney said that Mr. Williams’ past refusal of help should also be understood and approached with his past trauma in view. She said, “his inability to form supportive relationships are grounded in past trauma and parental loss” … which is “related to his rejection of personal and professional support systems”.⁹¹

213Finally, his history of trauma and parental loss, combined with the subsequent disruptions in care that he experienced as a youth, impaired his ability to form supportive and stable relationships in adulthood. This unfortunately maintains Mr. Williams’ elevated risk status to the extent that he stays disconnected from, or is actively rejecting of, personal and professional support systems.

214More generally, it is well documented that the cumulative exposure to adverse and traumatic events in childhood is related to worse functioning across several domains among people with schizophrenia, including psychiatric problems, substance abuse, physical health problems, and social functioning. But both experts observed:

He has also not had culturally relevant or trauma informed programming that supports his personal identity and experiences. Mr. Williams has been more likely to engage in supervision when he is directed to do so by external controls. He is likely to require an individualized, behavioral therapy approach with a focus on basic coping skills, and consequences. He will require a high degree of individual supervision both to manage his risk variables, but also to assist in his day-to-day functioning.⁹²

Symptoms of Major Mental Disorder

215The first dynamic risk factor identified was Mr. Williams’ major mental illness and, more specifically, the psychotic symptoms it presents. That Mr. Williams has a major mental disorder was clearly proven. His schizophrenia has a very strong connection to his risk of violent re-offence. It has gone untreated for much of his adult life, largely because Mr. Williams lacks insight into his disorder and declines medication or treatment.

216He has displayed symptoms of schizophrenia while denying the presence of symptoms. He has denied the need for medication, and denied the diagnosis applies to him. He has refused medication because he feels it has no effect on him.

217Mr. Williams’ past capacity to make treatment decisions seems to have been unassessed in any meaningful way, except for his time under the Community Treatment Order⁹³. When treatment was presented to him as a choice, Mr. Williams invariably chose no treatment.

218When untreated, Mr. Williams struggles to regulate negative mood states like anger and frustration. He loses organizational skills to assist with logical decisions or even self-care. If the schizophrenia is not treated, it will increase his risk for violence and will continue to impair his cognitive function and ability to make careful decisions.

219But the evidence conclusively proved that Mr. Williams’ symptoms respond well, both in the past and the present, to treatment with anti-psychotics. His symptoms have reduced and his behaviour stabilized with medication treatment. This is clear from his response to the short-term coercive treatment efforts, the long-term Community Treatment Order, and his most recent hospitalization at CAMH. Dr. Penney said:

In 2014, Mr. Williams’ mental status was observed to improve significantly when he was receiving antipsychotic medication consistently, via an LAI. Given his reluctance to accept medication and the difficulty of ensuring compliance, particularly when he is living on the streets, future treatment efforts should prioritize an LAI, and possibly consider treatments for refractory symptoms of psychosis such as Clozapine.⁹⁴

220Dr. Penney said that reducing or controlling his symptoms is a risk factor that should be addressed first. Long-Acting Injections could be helpful in that regard, as it was while he was on the Community Treatment Order:

…this period you’re referring to, he was on what’s called the long-acting injection which I frequently used. It avoids problem with compliance like daily oral medication, things like that. And I think it also shows that really effective medication therapy is a pre-requisite for anything else to follow.⁹⁵

221While in presentence custody, Mr. Williams voluntarily took Olanzapine orally for some time. He was doing so, he told Dr. Wilkie, to have some small human interaction with the nurse on medication rounds. He has “verbalized a willingness to participate in treatment programming in the future and restart medication for his mental health symptoms, should he be directed to do so.”⁹⁶

222He told Dr. Penney that he had recently asked to discontinue the Olanzapine, claiming a doctor told him of severe side effects like “blindness” and “amputation”. Dr. Penney said those are not side effects of Olanzapine. Like with Dr. Wilkie, Mr. Williams told Dr. Penney he would re-start medication in the community if this judge orders him to. He also said he is willing to engage in other forms of treatment, such as individual or group therapy.

Severe Substance Use Disorders

223Mr. Williams’ diagnoses of cannabis use disorder and stimulant use disorder link directly to risk of re-offence. Dr. Wilkie said that both substances disinhibit behaviour and judgment, and could have contributed to the ease with which he has risen to anger. The predicate offence was linked to frustration Mr. Williams was experiencing, while unsuccessfully panhandling for crack money.

224His substance use, Dr. Wilkie added, also likely contributed to the destabilization of his mental health and exacerbated his symptoms.

225Mr. Williams’ use is entrenched in his lifestyle. He has used cannabis heavily since his youth. It has persisted to the point where it cost him family relationships and a stable place to live. In other words, substance use is a significant marker of risk in this case and its treatment poses a significant challenge.

226He is in a period of “forced abstinence” inside jail. If he returns to the community, Mr. Williams told Dr. Willkie, he wants to return to using these substances. But subsequently in the same interview, he advised that if a condition was placed on him to abstain from substances, he would abstain. Although he lacks the internal motivation to change his use, Dr. Wilkie repeatedly characterized him as externally motivated and “highly motivated” to return to the community.⁹⁷

227Dr. Wilkie opined that in order to reduce risk, Mr. Williams would need to abstain from alcohol and drugs for life. His ability to follow through with that goal is, at its best for him, unknown. At its worst, the prognosis is poor due to his ASPD. Dr. Wilkie testified that:

Substance-abusing offenders with concurrent antisocial personality disorder do not appear to benefit from substance abuse treatment in the same manner as offenders who do not carry a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, at least with respect to impact on recidivism. However, there does appear to be a potential benefit in terms of reducing the frequency and intensity of substance use.

228In her testimony, Dr. Wilkie was asked to explain this further and said:

Q. You also say that substance abuse offenders with concurrent antisocial personality disorder do not appear to benefit from substance abuse treatment in the same manner. What do you mean by the same manner?

A. That they may be less likely to engage with regard to substance use treatment, and there appears to be less impact on recidivism with regard to participation solely in substance use treatment. So I think the useful part of that is again thinking about many of these diagnoses together, requiring multimodal interventions in order to address risk.⁹⁸

229Mr. Williams has never followed through with substance abuse treatment when it was recommended to him. His substance use disorder is completely untreated:

Unfortunately, Mr. Williams has yet to participate in substance use treatment programming, and so it is largely unknown how responsive he would be to such programming, and how effective it would be in promoting his abstention from substances and managing his risk. Consistent and sustained substance use programing is required to appreciably manage risk in this area.⁹⁹

230Dr. Wilkie’s testimony suggested the presence of external controls, like urine screens, could be employed to monitor substance use. She said substance abuse treatment would need to be longitudinal and include maintenance. Her report suggested that, if Mr. Williams were to be placed in the community, he should first:

…undergo substance use programming, both in the institution and in the community; these sessions should be individualized and delivered in a manner that takes into account his cognitive deficits. Maintenance substance programming should continue in the long-term in the community. He should remain abstinent from alcohol and drug use in perpetuity.¹⁰⁰

Poor Treatment Response

231Poor treatment response is the final dynamic factor that, Dr. Penney said, could be targeted to reduce risk. Mr. Williams has rejected supports, and declined treatment, since he was a youth. His rejection of treatment is longstanding and habitual. The expert evidence supports this pattern as entrenched in his traumatic upbringing and history of loss.

232Even if he is willing to take treatment, as Mr. Williams says he is, the effects of his major mental disorder and possible intellectual disability could interfere with Mr. Williams’ future ability to do so. His schizophrenia can cause difficulties in:

…problem solving, being able to sequence things and problem solve in an efficient way, being able to plan ahead and organize. .. those are the higher order skills that, similar to cognitive skills, are – often seem to be impaired in schizophrenia.¹⁰¹

Meanwhile, his low cognitive function test scores suggest:

... problems or some impairments with short term memory … it can reflect problems with attention. It can reflect problems with the memory processes themselves. So, memory is complex. It involves, kind of, again, retention, retrieval, storage. And so it can reflect problems at any or all of those stages…¹⁰²

233Treatment in such circumstances, Dr. Penney testified, must utilize a different approach to maximize responsivity and help Mr. Williams learn:

…it can mean concrete things like providing written and – and simple instructions, rather than relying on…a verbal conversation. … written reminders, I think, would be key instead of relying on memory. … from these results, there could be a number of recommendations or the main one being, you know, to have providers that are skilled and accustomed to working with individuals who have these types of cognitive challenges… there are many services and programs, vocational supports, housing supports, that are – that are specialized for individuals with these types of challenges.

Q. …there may be some significance that this (cognitive testing) has never been done in the past and so whoever – whether it’s probation officer or anyone else – provided him with programming, not understanding how he processes information, may have impacted how he responded to direction or other things. IS that fair or how would you assess that?

A. Yes. I think, going forward, now – now that we have this data and information from Mr. Williams, I think it’s really important that it get carried forward to any probation or other treatment providers that are working with him.

Q. …in view of some of the things which, as I would understand, the testing does in terms of memory, processing, processing information, the fact that he hasn’t been able to address his anger, could part of the challenge be his cognitive challenge?

A. Absolutely. I think, you know, it’s helpful to think of these cognitive challenges as things that can impact someone’s responsivity to treatment. And so, that’s why, for example, in corrections and other settings, we have groups and treatment programs that are specifically designed for offenders with cognitive challenges because there – there will be, you know, different issues and issuing responding to standard forms of treatment.¹⁰³

234Dr. Penney was correct in stating that corrections offer groups and treatment programs specifically designed for offenders with cognitive and responsivity challenges. I was satisfied, on the evidence, that adaptive programming and treatment were available to offenders like Mr. Williams – primarily in the federal corrections system.

Treatment and Risk Management in Federal and Provincial Corrections

235Gifty Asubonteng, an experienced federal parole officer, testified about operations within the federal corrections system. Correctional Service Canada (CSC) operations include development and delivery of programming inside institutions, as well as supervision on forms of release. CSC’s paramount objective is to protect the public.

236When an individual enters a federal institution, an individualized Correctional Plan is crafted. This outlines how the offender is expected to proceed through the system, including treatment / programming goals to reduce risk of re-offence. It is a live document, which evolves as the offender proceeds through their system. Individuals are re-assessed every two years.

237The Correctional Plan contains “an assessment of an offender’s accountability, motivation and responsivity needs to determine his engagement”.¹⁰⁴ Part of creating the Correctional Plan involves information gathering from the provincial system. This is added to any federal information already known about the offender. Information gathered includes medical records and psychiatric or psychological assessments. For example, Ms. Asubonteng said, if Mr. Williams was an incoming federal offender, Dr. Wilkie’s forensic psychiatric report would be obtained and relied upon.

238Implementation of federal programming is not under-resourced. Ms. Asubonteng agreed that programs are implemented by “large number(s) of volunteers from different community groups and social workers from across the country…thousands of people across the country”.¹⁰⁵

239Before beginning programming, there is a “primer program” which helps introduce the correctional programming and addresses any risk related issues, or stressors, that the offender may be struggling with at the outset. It is ”a motivational tool to get them to buy into the program, the core programming”.¹⁰⁶ The primer program takes place in a group setting, but subsequent one-on-one help is available for those with responsivity issues.

240The program model breaks offenders into different streams and different risk levels. A high risk, high needs offender like Mr. Williams would be placed into the high intensity, multi-target stream of programming. This stream can include offenders with long criminal histories or who may have difficulty understanding their risk factors.

241In the multi-target high intensity programs, there are 91 group sessions, of 2.5 hours each. Offenders who do not do well in group settings, including those with cognitive issues, may be instructed through an adapted program for high risk, high needs offenders with cognitive issues.

242Regional Treatment Centres “offer adapted programming” and are facilities for “offenders with severe mental health concerns”.¹⁰⁷ After intake, an offender may be placed there.

243During the entirety of incarceration, offenders are encouraged to participate in programming and release remains an incentive. If a person fails to do well in a regular stream, they will be moved to a motivational model to help engage them. These programs were specifically designed to address offenders who have a history of not being motivated to take treatment. Offenders may also be offered the opportunity to repeat a program, in recognition that not everyone will learn at the same pace or in the same ways.

244The programming is not mandatory. But non-participation affects the offender in negative ways. It can prevent cascading down to medium or minimum security, and the case management team will not offer support for forms of community release.

245One form of early release is day parole. For offenders like Mr. Williams, a halfway house would review their case and determine if they are eligible to reside there. If a halfway house refuses to accept a person, that person may not be approved for release by the parole board.

246Halfway houses (CRFs) offer monitored supervision, including for high-risk offenders on LTSOs. Time in the community is monitored by scheduled call-in appointments, and a curfew restricts community access at night. The halfway houses offer counseling and supervision, including meetings with a parole officer. Individuals with Long-Term Supervision Orders (LTSO) will reside there as well, and the parole board would impose conditions to assist with monitoring behaviour and risk.

247Programming remains available inside the halfway house, including for continued substance use relapse prevention and mental health treatment. In Brampton, one halfway house has specific mental health beds, and a contracted nurse practitioner meets with offenders.

248For offenders unsuitable for CRFs, CCCs are geared toward high-risk offenders. Ontario has two CCCs: Keele Correctional Centre (KCC) and Henry Trail Correctional Centre. At KCC, where Ms. Asubonteng works, a psychologist or psychiatrist is available on site, Monday through Friday. If there is a need for mental health support on a weekend, the person can be brought to a local hospital.

249Based on need, an offender will receive a referral to psychology within their first week, and the psychologist / psychiatrist determines frequency of meetings from there. Medication is provided on site, with penalty for non-compliance. Injectable medication can also be administered on site.

250LTSOs have a release plan attached to their case, which includes the offender’s criminal history, institutional behaviour, programs taken, progress made in programs, and risk assessments. The National Parole Board (NPB) will impose conditions, which can take into account judicial recommendations and can include curfew, geographical restrictions, orders to take medication as recommended by a doctor, abstention from non-prescribed controlled substances, and compliance with urine screen testing which monitors for substance use.

251Breaches of LTSOs can be met with, depending on the circumstances, a warning, charges laid and/or a suspension of the LTSO, or internal applications to cancel release. Ms. Asubonteng said:

Q. … What do you mean by laying a breach for deteriorating behaviour for protection of the public?

A. So, in the event that an offender is … say they have mental health issues, and it’s destabilizing to the point where they’re being violent with staff. That could be a form of deterioration and behaviour, and it’s essentially management in the community at that point.

Q. What about someone who exhibits deteriorating mental health?

A. Yes. Yes, mental health, again, we consult with the … mental health team, and they also have an input in that in terms of what we do. So it, it could happen that if they’re mentally unstable and we are unable to manage that risk, then a suspension could be applied in this case.¹⁰⁸

252If an LTSO is completed and the offender continues to pose public risk, CSC typically sends police a package containing psych reports, offender history, mental health concerns, so that police may warn the public about these concerns. CSC may also, through police, bring the offender back to court and place them on section 810 peace bonds orders with conditions. If mental health is grounding instability, CSC can use the Mental Health Act to have the person detained at hospital if they pose a risk to themselves or others.

253Brad Tamcsu, the Manager of Mental Health and Addictions in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, was also called by the Crown. He testified about the provincial reformatory system, and specialized treatment centres within it that provide “more intensive programming, treatment, rehabilitation for the sentenced population”.¹⁰⁹

254St. Lawrence Valley Correctional Treatment Centre is one such facility, and is a designated Schedule I Mental Health Act facility. They have the ability to treat offenders there, pursuant to the Mental Health Act, including coercive treatment under Form 1.

255At St. Lawrence, the facility’s primary focus is mental health stabilization. It also provides programming to address substance use and emotional regulation. The required application, to be admitted into St. Lawrence, requires a person to accept they have an illness and wanting to receive treatment for it. There are no guarantees of acceptance.

256All programming, within the whole provincial system, is voluntary and can be repeated without limit. There is no case management plan in this system, like the federal system’s correctional plan¹¹⁰. Judges can recommend offenders be placed in the intensive stream of programming. Once a person is flagged as appropriate for intensive stream, they will be prioritized to get into group programs, and more intense supervision on specified areas of risk. This supervision is done by the person’s probation officer.

257Not all probation officers have access to a psychiatrist, although they will work with contract psychiatrists. Much of mental health risk control would depend on the individual’s probation officer, even in terms of their familiarity with the Mental Health Act.¹¹¹There is no equivalent to CCCs or CRFs in the provincial correctional system.

Letters from Mr. Williams

258Mr. Williams submitted letters to Dr. Wilkie and to the court. The content of those letters support Dr. Wilkie’s view that he is currently highly motivated to return to the community, and is willing to comply with conditions – including medication – to achieve that end.

259That said, weight accorded to these letters was minimal, given that their contents were not tested in court.

The Legislative Scheme – Designation Stage

260Section 753(1)(a) states:

753(1) On application made under this Part after an assessment report is filed under subsection 752.1(2), the court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied

(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing

(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons; or, inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons through failure int eh future to restrain his or her behaviour;

(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour; or,

(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint….

261Thus an offender must be designated a dangerous offender if:

• The predicate offence is a serious personal injury offence, as per the list in s. 752(a);

AND

• The evidence establishes one of three categories of “future threat”, meaning future offending behaviour. These three categories are, as per s. 753:

o repetitive behaviour showing failure to restrain and likelihood of physical / psychological harm in future

OR

o persistent aggressive behaviour shown by indifference to foreseeable consequences to others

OR

brutal behaviour¹¹² compelling conclusion that future behaviour unlikely to be restrained

Public Protection from Future Risk

262The overarching Parliamentary intent, in legislating the dangerous offender regime, was protecting the public from future risk through preventative incarceration. R. v. Jones (1994), 1994 CanLII 85 (SCC), 114 D.LR. (4th) 645 (S.C.C.) at para. 124:

The overriding aim is not the punishment of the offender but the prevention of future violence through the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

263Laforest J. emphasized the future-oriented approach at para. 43 of R. v. Lyons,

1987 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309:

…it must be established that the pattern of conduct is very likely to continue and to result in the kind of suffering against which the section seeks to protect, namely, conduct endangering the life, safety or physical well-being of others or, in the case of sexual offences, conduct causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons. Also explicit in one form or another in each subparagraph of s. [687, now 753] is the requirement that the court must be satisfied that the pattern of conduct is substantially or pathologically intractable.

264The predecessor to s. 753(1) had vested sentencing jurists with discretion, even if the dangerous offender criteria were met, not to impose a dangerous offender designation. In 2008 Parliament amended the statutory scheme, removed that discretionary language, and mandated a dangerous offender designation upon the statutory criteria being met:

…a court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender.

265Removing this judicial discretion led the Supreme Court to consider, in R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, whether the amendments rendered s. 753(1) unconstitutional. The appellant argued overbreadth because, in the designation analysis, courts were precluded from considering future treatment prospects.

266The Supreme Court disagreed. Cote J. for the majority held courts are not precluded from considering future treatment prospects at the designation stage. Indeed, they are mandated to do so. Assessing future treatment prospects is necessarily part of a prospective risk assessment into intractable future threat. As per para. 46 of Boutilier:

A prospective assessment of dangerousness ensures that only offenders who pose a tremendous future risk are designated as dangerous and face the possibility of being sentenced to an indeterminate detention. This necessarily involves the consideration of future treatment prospects.

The Essential Elements and Standard of Proof

267In addition to proving the predicate offence as part of a broader pattern of violence, there are two essential elements that the Crown must prove to designate an offender as dangerous:

(a) There is a high likelihood of violent recidivism, and;

(b) The violent conduct is “substantially or pathologically intractable”.

268These two elements are separate and distinct. Finding proof beyond reasonable doubt of a high likelihood of violent recidivism does not necessarily drive a conclusion that intractability has also been proven beyond reasonable doubt: R. v. Lonechild, 2023 SKCA 75 at para. 96.

269Additionally, both elements are future-oriented and, as per R. v. Boutilier at paras. 27, 45-46, must both be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

Before designating a dangerous offender, a sentencing judge must still be satisfied on the evidence that the offender poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and that this or her conduct is intractable.

…offenders will not be designated as dangerous if their treatment prospects are so compelling that the sentencing judge cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that they present a high likelihood of harmful recidivism or that their violent pattern is intractable: see Neuberger, at p. 7-1, by M. Henschel…

In sum, a finding of dangerousness has always required that the Crown demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and the intractability of the violent pattern of conduct.¹¹³ A prospective assessment of dangerousness ensures that only offenders who pose a tremendous future risk are designated as dangerous and face the possibility of being sentenced to an indeterminate detention.

270The Court’s use of the phrase, “if their treatment prospects are so compelling,” does not shift the onus of proof away from the Crown. Nor does it change the requisite threshold, of proof beyond reasonable doubt, to a lesser standard.

271Nordheimer J.A. made this clear in R. v. Brown, 2021 ONCA 320 [leave dismissed, [2022] S.C.C.A. No. 107] at para. 28-29:

Contrary to the respondent’s submissions, I do not consider Cote J.’s use of the words “so compelling” as being intended to establish a new and extremely high bar applicable to this factor in the overall determination of the dangerous offender question. She does not suggest that she was intending to introduce any special hurdle for an individual to surmount, or special test to be applied, when their future treatability is taken into account in the dangerous offender analysis. Rather, Cote

J. is simply explaining that evidence about treatability, that is not sufficiently cogent as to affect a trial judge’s conclusion on dangerousness, may still be relevant in deciding on the sentence that is required to adequately protect the public. Nevertheless, future treatability is still but one factor to be considered in the overall assessment. I also note, on this point, that the Crown bears the onus of establishing that the dangerous offender designation is made out, a conclusion which must, of course, be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further, reading Cote J.’s reasons as a whole, the thrust of the decision is to reinforce the point that designating an individual as a dangerous offender is a finding of last resort. In other words, it is a finding that should only be arrived at if no lesser determination is appropriate in all the circumstances. This approach is consistent with Cote J.’s explanation of the rationale as to why it was important for future treatment to be considered as part of the designation process.

272But, appellate courts caution, speculation must not be conflated with, or substituted for, the presence of reasonable doubt. An “expression of hope” will not raise reasonable doubt, as per paras. 46-47 of R. v. Sewap, 2025 SKCA 114:

The question of whether an offender's treatment prospects are sufficiently compelling to raise a reasonable doubt about future violence or intractability is a question of fact (R v Bird, 2023 SKCA 40 at para 55, citing R v J.J.P., 2020 YKCA 13 at para 68, 390 CCC (3d) 513). Judges must bear in mind the public protection purpose that underlies Part XXIV of the Criminal Code when answering that question. Where an offender's past behaviour suggests that their risk for violent offending will carry into the future, evidence that amounts to no more than speculation, an expression of hope, or the mere possibility that future treatment might succeed will generally not be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt (Boutilier at para 83; R v Goforth, 2007 SKCA 144 at para 54, 302 Sask R265; R v A.R., 2022 ONCA 553 at para 32).

A reasonable doubt about future violence or intractability must be based on evidence that permits the sentencing judge to conclude that the prospects for successful treatment are good enough that they can reduce or contain the offender's risk to such a degree that there is no longer a high likelihood of future violent offending (Bird at para 59). Evidence indicating that an offender has a poor outlook for improvement even where treatment exists, that treatment will be lengthy and difficult because the offender has a limited capacity to learn, or that no time frame for improvement can be reasonably estimated, will all tend to weigh against a finding that treatment prospects are sufficiently compelling to raise a reasonable doubt about intractability (see: R v Ominayak, 2007 ABQB 442 at para 209, aff'd 2012 ABCA 337).

The Threat Assessment Element

273Returning to the first element that must be proven, under s. 753(1)(a)(ii), the Crown must prove (i) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour (ii) that the predicate offence forms part of that pattern (iii) that pattern shows a substantial degree of indifference respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour.

274I found this element, under ss. (a)(ii), proven beyond a reasonable doubt.¹¹⁴

275There is clearly a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour that Mr. Williams reduplicates, repeatedly and predictably. This behaviour historically has been triggered by similar circumstances. When Mr. Williams finds his personal needs or wants thwarted, he becomes frustrated and engages in random acts of violence against people nearby.

276I must add that, recently, Mr. Williams’ victims were young women. The evidence is not clear why that is. Historically, Mr. Williams offended against both men and women. But I did accept that there was no sexual or misogynistic element behind his offending, and no specific intent to target one gender.

277Still, there is a thread running through his history of him having needs, like shelter, frustrated and responding with random, illogical violence. Those responses consistently show no regard for how his violent acts can hurt others. Even offences that are non-violent on the surface, like cause disturbance or mischief, often followed this same pattern when their underlying facts were revealed.

278Not every conviction on Mr. Williams’ criminal record bore weight in this analysis. But his past acts of violence played a meaningful part. So, too, did the risk assessments conducted and interpreted by the expert witnesses, and which easily supported the conclusion that Mr. Williams is a high risk to re-offend violently.

279The predicate offence also squarely fits into this pattern. Mr. Williams was panhandling and became frustrated at the lack of money he was getting. He decided to throw a rock at a girl to “ease the pain” and teach other people a lesson about giving him money.

280Much of his criminal history of offending clearly fit this pattern too:

• March 30 2008 he was panhandling in McDonalds and told to leave by a male employee. That employee pushed him towards door. Mr. Williams punched him in the right eye with his fist. Treatment involved 4 stitches;

• April 13 2008 he was refused a cigarette by a male victim and responded by slashing the victim’s face with a torn aluminum can;

• Dec. 4 2010 he randomly attacked a male wheelchair bound victim in an elevator, by grabbing him by the neck and striking the disabled man in the chest multiple times without provocation;

• Sept. 6 2011 he aggressively approached a male stranger on the street and without provocation, punched him, kicked him, and then fled;

• September 13 2012, he approached a man locking up his bike, and kicked that bike hard enough that it bounced back and hit its owner on the arm. Mr. Williams said he kicked the bike because he was kicked out of a TTC station;

• July 13 2013, a special constable tried to remove him from sleeping in an apartment building stairwell. He resisted and threatened twice to “clock” the constable, who had to pepper spray Mr. Williams to get compliance;

• March 3 2014, he was punching out at the faces of passers-by. One punch narrowly missed a pedestrian’s face. Mr. Williams said he had been kicked off the TTC, and had been unsuccessfully panhandling. He was upset and said he punched at these people to “warn them” that he ”could hit you”;

• February 19 2018 he was acting bizarrely inside a Tim Horton’s, including standing on a table. He struck a female employee in the chest with his elbow when she tried to get him to leave;

• March 30 2020 at 3:30 am he assaulted a male security guard by striking him in the face. The security guard was telling him to leave a building lobby Mr. Williams was sleeping in;

• April 15 2020, he punched a woman in the back so hard it caused her weeks of pain. He had been sleeping in between entrance doors of an apartment building;

• February 11 2021 Mr. Williams was sleeping in a building when asked to leave. He stood up, started yelling, and struck the male complainant on the jaw;

• March 22 2021 a woman was leaving an apartment building where he had been lying on the floor, when Mr. Williams punched her on the back very hard;

• November 27 2022 Mr. Williams entered Dundas subway station, punched a woman and walked away;

• December 1 2022 a woman was at a Tim Horton's outlet at Dundas and Jarvis. Mr. Williams was there too, talking gibberish. When she left, he ran at her from behind and punched her in the head causing her to fall into a live lane of traffic;

• January 22 2023 a woman was walking her dog when Mr. Williams approached her and asked her for money. She refused and left. Mr. Williams followed her, blocked her path, and then punched her using a closed fist.

281Even when I placed less weight upon the offences where, for example, the facts could only be made out through a synopsis, this repetitive, persistent pattern remained palpably obvious.

282This pattern shows a substantial degree of indifference by the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour. This was clearly made out on all the evidence. Throwing a rock at a woman’s head. Grabbing a disabled man’s neck. Pushing someone on the back so hard it caused weeks of pain. Pushing a woman into traffic. Punching out close to the faces and heads of people passing by.

283I recognize this issue cannot be determined by this past conduct alone. It, like the second essential element of intractability, must be decided using a future-oriented approach. But looking at the psychiatric explanations for his pattern of offending – untreated symptoms of psychosis, ASPD, substance use disorders, cognitive deficits and unregulated emotions – their prevalence over time, and the way they repeatedly have come together to cumulate in violence – undisputedly supports the conclusion that his pattern of violence will continue to repeat.

284Further, Mr. Williams’ proclivity for returning to a destabilizing, unhoused environment will continue to feed this risk that he will meet frustrations with violence:

In the community, Mr. Williams has shown a repeated propensity to return to an environment that is destabilizing and risk enhancing, wherein he has an unstructured lifestyle, is unhoused, does not utilize community or mental health supports, and uses substances. He has limited coping, vocational and interpersonal skills upon which to build should he be released into the community, and therefore it is highly likely that he would return to a similar, destabilizing situation. His ability to adapt to a structured environment, cope with stressors and seek social support without significant external controls appears limited.

Homelessness can contribute to the risk of reoffending by limiting an individual’s access, or ability to remain connected, to services that address key criminogenic and clinical risk factors. Mr. Williams reports a preference to remain unhoused due to a perceived sense of autonomy and freedom; however, the resulting instability and social isolation can exacerbate underlying vulnerabilities. Without stable housing, he would struggle to manage untreated mental illness, lack consistent personal and professional support, and continue to use substances, in part as a means of coping with stressors.¹¹⁵

[emphasis added]

285The evidence as a whole, including but not confined to the risk assessment tools and opinion of Dr. Wilkie, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams is a risk to violently re-offend in the future. It proved this risk is significant. It proved this pattern demonstrates, in its operation, a significant degree of indifference to how his actions can or will hurt people.

286In reaching this conclusion, I employed a future-oriented approach. I have considered evidence that could tend against this conclusion, such as gaps in Mr. Williams’ violent offending, and periods of stability where he largely committed non-violent crime. Neither raised a reasonable doubt with respect to proof of this essential element.

287The Crown satisfied me, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, that the predicate offence forms part of this pattern, and that the Pattern shows the requisite degree of indifference to reasonably foreseeable consequences.

The Intractability Element

Applicable Legal Principles and Factors to Consider

288Intractable behaviour was defined, in Boutilier at para. 27, as “behaviour that the offender is unable to surmount”. It is a separate element of proof, and not presumed by proof beyond reasonable doubt of violent behavioural patterns. The intractability evaluation requires a future-oriented approach: Boutilier, supra. Molloy J. described this prospective analysis at para. 16 of R. v. A.M., 2019 ONSC 5065 [aff’d 2024 O.J. No. 3349]:

Rather than merely looking at whether the offender’s conduct has been intractable in the past, the sentencing judge must be satisfied that this will be the case into the future.

289This future-oriented approach helps ensure, as per para. 14 of R. v. J.C., 2025 ONCA 331, “that only offenders who pose a future risk are designated as dangerous and face the possibility of being sentenced to indeterminate detention”.

290Proof of intractability is concerned with intractability of the violent behavioural pattern established, as opposed to intractability of any criminal conduct. A reasonable doubt about intractability will not be raised by speculation or the “mere expression of hope”. Nor does the Crown bear any burden to prove “absolute intractability”. Proof of intractability does not mean proof of incurability.

291To consider this essential element from the required future-oriented perspective, past performance over time must still be considered. Past failures matter. Past successes matter. What options have been tried before and their outcomes matter. The present must be considered. Steps taken during the application process should be considered. Current motivation to comply with orders can be a factor. Stated intentions not to comply with orders, as Dr. Wilkie said, can be quite important to consider. Available future treatment options matter. How targeted treatment could reasonably be expected to impact an offender’s unique needs, challenges, and risk levels are of import.

292Gaps in an individual’s offending history can be relevant, but are far from determinative of the element of intractability: R. v. Carter, 2024 ONCA 898 at para. 19. The absence of past opportunities for treatment in the federal system will not suffice, alone, to raise a reasonable doubt on this essential element: R. v. A.R., 2022 ONCA 552 at para. 33. But both remain available as relevant factors to consider, in the context of the evidence as a whole.

293Similarly, evidence of shortcomings in past treatment attempts, and the availability of more intensive and/or targeted treatment options, can be considered as part of the intractability assessment: R. v. J.C., supra at para. 23:

In his evidence, Dr. Klassen described the appellant's previous treatment programs as relatively short-term and unlikely to have been effective. For this reason, Dr. Klassen described the appellant as being, in practical terms, an "untreated offender". Had this evidence been considered at the designation stage, it may well have led the trial judge to conclude that the appellant was not intractable and that he therefore ought not to be designated as a dangerous offender. The fact that this was a realistic possibility is reflected in the trial judge's finding (albeit at the penalty stage rather than the designation stage) that "there is a possibility of successful treatment and cure, [and] the prospects of risk reduction and risk management and the reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community are real."

[emphasis added]

294While evidence about ‘treatability’ is woven through both the designation and the penalty stage, intractability is conceptually different than “manageability”. The latter is considered at the subsequent penalty stage, if the designation test is met. That said, the need to consider all the evidence on each essential element means, as per R. v. Lonechild, supra, at paras. 107-109:

….the strict compartmentalization of treatment and

manageability may not be possible.

This principle is illustrated in Bird, where Kalmakoff J.A. for the Court considered what evidence is relevant to the determination of intractability and developed the following list:

50… A number of considerations will be relevant in determining whether the evidence permits such a conclusion, including (a) whether the offender has deeply ingrained personality disorders that are resistant to change, (b) the availability or lack of availability of appropriate treatment facilities or programs, (c) the offender’s outlook for improvement where programs or facilities exist, (d) whether or not an ascertainable time frame for improvement can be estimated or predicted, and (e) whether the delivery of the necessary treatment will be impeded because the offender has multiple disorders or a limited capacity to learn [cites omitted]

The above list of considerations includes both present and ongoing treatment and programs which would be directed to assisting an offender to surmount their violent behaviour. A consideration of such matters will allow a sentencing judge to assess other contextually relevant evidence, including whether there has been a change of significance in the offender’s personal circumstances or motivation that speaks directly to their likelihood of complying with treatment or their prospects of benefiting from it. All of this is consistent with a process that looks at risk over the whole term of a sentence, including time in custody and time spent being supervised under a long-term supervision order.

The Crown Failed to Prove Intractability

295I found the Crown failed to discharge their burden to establish intractability beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Mr. Williams cannot be designated a dangerous offender.

296It was easily proven that Mr. Williams’ violent patterns of behaviour can reasonably be expected to persist, and repeat, in the future. But when I applied a future-oriented approach to all evidence I accepted, I was not satisfied that the Crown proved his violent pattern was resistant to targeted intervention. I was not satisfied the Crown proved his violence was unlikely to change, in the future, within a reasonable time frame. I was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wiliams would be, in the future, unable to surmount his violent behaviour.

Sources of Risk are Known and Treatable

297The primary reasons underlying Mr. Williams’ offending behaviour are now known: his ASPD, his psychotic symptoms, his destabilizing lifestyle, his substance abuse. Each risk factor can be targeted with individualized treatment and programming. They are, as Dr. Penney characterized them, “mutable”.

298I am sure that the current understanding of Mr. Williams’ cognitive limitations will help administer treatment and programming in ways meaningful to him and that will impact these mutable sources of risk.

299In many ways, Mr. Williams is an untreated offender still. His cognitive limitations, in particular, have not been properly understood or applied in a treatment context. To be fair, the low test scores presented by Dr. Penney are, at least in part, the likely product of years of untreated schizophrenia. But past offers of treatment, and lack of success in treatment, must be understood through this current lens. Programming has been declined by him, not been offered at all because of anticipated refusal, or offered in ways that were basically inaccessible to him.

300Mr. Williams has also developed protective patterns around refusing help, steeped in his tumultuous upbringing. He will, first, require programming so he understands the need to take programming. This is available to him. The primer program, described by Ms. Asubonteng, is a compelling opportunity for him to begin work on that. The evidence proved that treatment, even the primer program, can be delivered in ways that enhance Mr. Williams’ ability to learn and respond.

301Further, in a federal institution, I was satisfied he would receive targeted treatment specific to his needs and challenges. I was satisfied it would be presented, in form and manner, so that he can better understand, learn, and adapt. The extended treatment and maintenance phrase required to ensure protection against substance use relapse can, again, be provided through the federal corrections system and in ways to increase Mr. Williams’ responsivity.

302I was easily satisfied on the evidence that the federal corrections system is not under-resourced to an extent that they cannot offer individualized, targeted treatment. Indeed, Ms. Asubontang’s testimony and CSC written materials supported the contrary inference.

The Schizophrenia Associates to Risk and is Treatable

303I concluded, based on past patterns of violence, treatment, and stabilization, that Mr. Williams’ periods of psychosis have strongly contributed to his offending cycle. These patterns of psychosis / unstable mental health, treatment, and return to stability go back over at least a decade, and have re-occurred as recently as his 2025 CAMH hospitalization.

304Treatment with anti-psychotics has been successful in reducing symptoms and controlling Mr. Williams’ violent outbursts. The barrier to success has never been the efficacy of anti-psychotics, but Mr. Williams’ unwillingness to comply with medication when given a choice.

305He currently says he is willing to take medication and comply with treatment orders, and I believe in the moment he means it. But also treatment is available to help him understand the need to take medication, even if he never gains insight into his disease.

306Mr. Williams is highly motivated to return to the community, making this an opportune time for intervention. Both experts testified that programming, delivered in a way to maximize Mr. Williams’ responsivity, is capable of targeting rigid thinking around treatment and medication.

307But I also feel quite confident in saying that treatment providers and treating physicians must be ready, if his views on medication starts to change. Court orders will be required, on a long-term basis, to ensure medication compliance. The absence of such conditions will elevate his risk to re-offend violently.

308After reviewing Mr. Williams’ history in documents, I feel compelled to say that any future refusal of medication should be meaningfully assessed, in light of whether he has capacity to make informed decisions about treatment. This observation may not be squarely within the four corners of this application, but the evidence showed the capacity issue constantly flying under almost everyone’s radar. This must change.

309In noting this, perhaps for the National Parole Board as opposed to the parties in this case, I am hopeful that Mr. William’s capacity to consent or decline medication will always be kept in mind and frequently assessed by treating physicians.

310In my view, there were probably periods of time where Mr. Williams was refusing to take medication while he was legally incapable of making that decision. The information that all stakeholders (including federal corrections) now share, as a result of this application, should prevent this issue from sliding through the cracks.

Capable and Willing to Follow Orders

311Putting capacity aside, the evidence established that Mr. Williams is willing to take medication if this court orders him to. He does have a past track record of complying with mandatory requirements. This track record is far from perfect, but it gave rise to more than just “hope”.

312Probation files showed him reporting to probation surprisingly often, for someone who existed in highly unstable environments and circumstances. Mr. Williams’ many breaches of probation were mostly breaches of the statutory condition to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour”. There was little evidence of him breaching any non-statutory conditions.

313In the past, when probation referred Mr. Williams to a psychiatrist, he complied with what he was told to do - even though he did not want to do it. That treating psychiatrist quickly referred him back to probation, because Mr. Williams was not particularly interested in treatment. No one dug deeper. This, too, must change.

314He has engaged with programming, albeit on a surface level, in the TSDC in 2023. No one mandated this. He did it either to help his chances of returning to the community, or to fill up empty hours with human interaction, or both. Similarly, he voluntarily took anti-psychotics in jail for a relatively long time. He did so while waiting for this application to complete, but also while he was in custody waiting for Rose J. to sentence him.

315The availability of the Mental Health Act powers, and Community Treatment Orders, both stand as guards against destabilization. Mr. Williams did well on a CTO, in my view and again, while he was living in shelters and on the street. While he offended violently once during its lifespan, it did not fit the pattern. Mr. Williams punched a police officer in the chest, causing no injury, because he had nowhere to stay and wanted to spend the night in jail.

316The CTO period was one timeframe where he proved the capability, if medicated, to reduce and even remove the violent pattern of offending. Although it fell apart by the end, and he became overwhelmed and fled, the CTO experience showed Mr. Williams following orders. It showed him opening up to help from community supports, and stabilizing himself with government assistance.

317Interestingly, when he fled the CTO for New Brunswick, Mr. Williams remained relatively stable (in the context of his life) for longer than one might expect. The pattern of violence against strangers, when his needs were frustrated, was present initially in early 2018 and then remained relatively stagnant until 2020.There was no suggestion that he was medicated during this timeframe, although court records refer to one psychiatric hospitalization we know nothing about.

Stable Housing Reduces Risk

318The CTO was one example of Mr. Williams’ risk of violence reduced by proper support. I also found Mr. Wiliams’ unhoused status contributed meaningfully to its ultimate lack of success. Instability in housing, as both experts noted, is a factor contributing to his risk that can be reversed.

319Before the CTO stability dissipated, Mr. Williams was actively reaching out to stabilize himself with a place to live. He stayed in shelters again. He tried to return to Aunt Olive’s, until probation reported his presence as unsafe for children living there. He stayed with his sister, but this was a short-term arrangement during which she had to re-locate her own children.

320He had probation and workers trying to help. Mr. Williams was actively co-operating with them. He applied for ODSP (through the mechanism of an SDM) and picked up the cheques. He engaged with risk factors and stabilization in ways he had not before. But he remained unhoused, became overwhelmed as per Dr. Wilkie, and left it all. The lesson I drew from this period of time, however, was that Mr. Williams was capable of leaving his unhoused status behind.

321There was one other period of stability that was coupled with a stable place to live. Mr. Williams was a youth while living with his great aunt Olive, and the temporal distance between then and now caused this evidence to receive less weight. However, the volatility of his behaviour, before living with her, was significant and troubling.

322Once he was stabilized in a home, with a family, the anger he regularly expressed and the violence he used to resolve conflict stopped. His criminal offending, a regular pattern by that time, also stopped. I found it of note that when Mr. Williams was struggling during the CTO, he tried to return to the stability Olive once provided.

323Dr. Wilkie opined, and I fully accept, that stability in housing will meaningfully reduce Mr. Williams’ risk of violently re-offending. She said:

While supportive or supervised housing environments may carry their own challenges, such as interpersonal conflict or exposure to substance use, the structured access to medication management, treatment programs, and ongoing supervision they provide would be crucial in promoting stability and reducing risk for Mr. Williams.¹¹⁶

324Ms. Asubonteng’s testimony bore weight in considering this risk factor as well. The federal system has the ability to house Mr. Williams, upon completion of some/all of his sentence and as part of a graduated release into the community. The setting is one of rules, but also where on-site psychiatric assistance and other supports would be available. Substance use would not be permitted, and ongoing maintenance treatment would be available – again, in forms to increase Mr. Williams’ response to treatment.

Intractability Conclusion

325In the paragraphs above, I have summarized evidence upon which I based my final conclusion on intractability. I wish to make it clear, however, that I considered the evidentiary record as a whole, in concluding the Crown failed to prove intractability beyond a reasonable doubt.

326The evidence in this case documented periods of stability, coupled with reduced offending and/or nonviolent offending. These time periods occurred when structured supports were in place. The more structured and multifaceted those supports, the stabler Mr. Williams’ behaviour got.

327We have more information about why Mr. Williams acts violently and why he has declined treatment in the past. The provisional diagnosis of intellectual disability is of import to current treatment options and to getting Mr. Williams to “buy in” to the concept of treatment. This is also new information upon which treatment foundations can be firmly built.

328His substance abuse disorder, I recognize, will be challenging to address. But I accept that currently, Mr. Williams is highly motivated to return to the community and wants to obey any conditions put in place that will enable that. I do believe this is sincere. He is in forced remission now, and will stay that way in custody, while learning new coping mechanisms for stressors. Once out of custody, I was satisfied the federal system will monitor for substance use through urine screens and personal observation.

329At this opportune time, strategies which emphasize treatment responsivity can be put in place, to meaningfully address patterns of thought and behaviour he historically relied on to cope and function. There is good reason to believe he can and will learn to accept help, structure, and treatment.

330Reducing risk will not be perfect and it will not be easy. But that is not the test. The evidentiary record gave rise to more than “mere hope”. It gave rise to ample reasonable doubt on the essential element of intractability. I was satisfied, based on the evidence, that the prospects for successful treatment are good enough to reduce Mr. Williams’ risk to such a degree that there will no longer be a high likelihood of future violent offending. Put otherwise, I had more than a reasonable doubt on this issue.

331The Crown’s application to designate Mr. Williams a dangerous offender must therefore be dismissed. But the evidence compelled me toward s. 753.(5), and to treat this application as an application for Mr. Williams to be designated a long-term offender.

332It would be appropriate to impose a sentence of two years or more for the predicate offence, given his prior record (including two 12-month sentences). There is a substantial risk that Mr. Williams will re-offend. Finally, there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of this risk in the community. Mr. Williams meets the criteria to be designated a long-term offender.

333On June 3 2026, I provided Mr. Williams with an informal overview of this judgment.¹¹⁷ While doing so, I advised both counsel that I will need submissions as to appropriate penalty. I said a penitentiary sentence will be imposed, even after presentence custody is taken into account.

334A ten-year LTSO will be imposed after the penitentiary sentence is served. I have invited submissions about conditions that could be recommended as part of Mr. Williams’ LTSO. It is important that Mr. Williams’ LTSO conditions be specific to the issues raised in this judgment and on the evidence.

335Finally, I would be deeply remiss if I did not thank both counsel. This was a challenging case in so many ways. I am grateful for their immense hard work, for their professionalism, for their co-operation with each other, and for the assistance they ably provided me.

Released: June 12, 2026

Signed: Justice H. Pringle

1, 13, 14, 21, Sept. 4, 26, Oct. 8, Nov. 13 2025; Feb. 3, March 9, May 19, June 3, 2026

capacity to make informed decisions in this regard.

Footnotes

1. 1Proceedings heard on Nov. 25, Dec. 6, Dec. 19, 2024; Jan. 10, April 8, May, 9, 26, July 2, 3, 31, August
2. 2Testimony of Dr. Treena Wilkie, July 31, 2025, at pp. 40-41
3. 3Report of Dr. Treena Wilkie, June 30, 2025 at p. 5
4. 41998 C.A.S. Psychological Report referenced Mr. Williams’ fear of his father’s “explosive temper”
5. 5Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 5
6. 6Historical C.A.S. records show Mr. Williams co-operated, as a youth, with multiple assessments. However, consent to medical treatment was refused by he and his mother.
7. 7Progress Notes of Dr. Peter Grant, child psychiatrist
8. 8Progress Report, December 2000 (referring to his time at Hayden Youth Services)
9. 9For the most part, Mr. Williams’ criminal behaviour is referenced by offence dates, not conviction dates
10. 10Offence date August 2, 1998;November 10, 1998 findings of guilt to assault with weapon x2
11. 11Offence date November 18, 2000; July 29, 2001 findings of guilt
12. 12Offence date Feb. 7, 2001
13. 13Pre-Disposition Report, April 6, 2001 at p. 6
14. 14Pre-Disposition Report, April 6, 2001 at p. 5
15. 15Probation Notes, November 2003
16. 16Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 4
17. 17Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 4
18. 18The date of those first adult convictions was September 6, 2006
19. 19Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 38
20. 20Report of Dr. Stephanie Penney, June 21, 2025, p. 16
21. 21Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, pp. 36-37
22. 22This hospitalization admission occurred in December 2006
23. 23Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 40
24. 24Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, p. 34
25. 25Letter from L. MacNaughton, September 7, 2008
26. 26BAU Report of Dr. Ian Swayze, October 7, 2008
27. 27BAU Report, October 7, 2008
28. 28This public mischief conviction may have been incorrectly entered in CPIC (possibly in lieu of Mischief).
29. 29Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 38
30. 30Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 40
31. 31Synopsis November 27, 2013, Mischief Under Offence
32. 32Treatment Order, April 8, 2010
33. 33Fitness Report of Dr. S. Wesley, April 27, 2010
34. 34BAU Report of Dr. A. McDonald, December 22, 2010
35. 35Dr. Wilkie conducted the expert assessment in the within application. Neither she nor Mr. Williams recalled each other, when they met in the present day. No party perceived any conflict.
36. 36Fitness Report (Modified) of Dr. Wilkie, Feb. 22, 2011
37. 37Fitness Report of Dr. Wilkie, Jan. 28, 2011; Fitness Report (Modified) of Dr. Wilkie, Feb. 22, 2011
38. 38Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 1, 2025, p. 39
39. 39Transcript of Guilty Plea, May 24, 2012
40. 40Probation Note of A. Stratton, October 7, 2010
41. 41Fitness Report of Dr. Swayze, October 22, 2012
42. 42Reporting Letter to Probation, Dr. B. Williams, January 7, 2012
43. 43TEGH Discharge Summary, Dr. R. Gorman, February 8, 2012
44. 44Mount Sinai Admission Notes, March 10, 2013
45. 45CAMH Discharge Summary Report, March 15, 2013
46. 46CAMH Admission Report, Dr. L. Ginsberg, April 23, 2013
47. 47Discharge Report, April 19 2013
48. 48CAMH Admission Notes, September 19, 2013
49. 49Discharge Report, Dr. Joannou, September 20, 2013
50. 50Jan. 12, 2014
51. 51Hospital Records, Report from L. Klaehn as collateral contact
52. 52SMH Admission Records, March 3 2014
53. 53SMH Discharge Summary, April 17 2014
54. 54Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 1, 2025, pp. 26-27
55. 55Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, p. 58
56. 56Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 1, 2025, p. 50
57. 57SMH Admission Note, 2016
58. 58SMH Admission Note, 2016
59. 59Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, p. 57
60. 60Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 32
61. 61Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 32
62. 62Report of Dr. Penney, pp. 6-7
63. 63Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 1, 2025, p. 68
64. 64Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 21, 2025, p. 3
65. 65No criminal charges were laid against Mr. Williams.
66. 66Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 14 2025, p. 7
67. 67Report of Dr. Penney, p. 9
68. 68Report of Dr. Penney, p. 7
69. 69Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 39
70. 70Report of Dr. Penney, pp. 12-13
71. 71Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 37; see also Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 1, 2025, p. 37
72. 72Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 40
73. 73Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 40
74. 74Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 1, 2025, pp. 3-4
75. 75Report of Dr. Wilkie, pp. 31-32
76. 76Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 41
77. 77Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, p. 89
78. 78Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 41
79. 79Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 42
80. 80Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, August 1, 2025, pp. 43-44
81. 81The PCL-R is not technically a “risk assessment tool”: see Testimony of Dr. Willkie, July 31, 2025, p. 45
82. 82Report of Dr. Penney, p. 15
83. 83Report of Dr. Penney, p. 15
84. 84Report of Dr. Penney, p. 16
85. 85Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 44
86. 86Testimony of Dr. Penney, September 4, 2025, p. 39
87. 87Testimony of Dr. Penney, September 4, 2025, pp. 37-38
88. 88Report of Dr. Penney, p. 11
89. 89Report of Dr. Penney, pp. 15-16; p. 12
90. 90Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, p. 34
91. 91Report of Dr. Penney, p. 16
92. 92Report of Dr. Wilkie, p. 51
93. 93No doubt Mr. Williams’ future treatment providers will keep a close and ongoing eye on whether he has
94. 94Report of Dr. Penney, p. 12
95. 95Testimony of Dr. Penney, September 4, 2025, p. 39
96. 96Report of Dr. Penney, p. 14
97. 97Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, p. 56; see also p. 23
98. 98Testimony of Dr. Wilkie, July 31, 2025, p. 53
99. 99Report of Dr. Penney, p. 13
100. 100Report of Dr. Wilkie, at p. 53
101. 101Testimony of Dr. Penney, September 4 ,2025, p. 23
102. 102Testimony of Dr. Penney, September 4, 2025, p. 28
103. 103Testimony of Dr. Penney, September 4, 2025, pp. 29-30
104. 104Community Supervision Package/Reintegration Programs, Correctional Service Canada
105. 105Testimony of G. Asubonteng, August 13, 2025, p. 8
106. 106Testimony of G. Asubonteng, August 13, 2025, p. 12
107. 107Testimony of G. Asubonteng, August 13, 2025, p. 83
108. 108Testimony of G. Asubonteng, August 13, 2025, p. 37
109. 109Testimony of B. Tamscu, August 14, 2025, p. 3
110. 110Testimony of B. Tamscu, August 14, 2025, p. 17
111. 111Testimony of B. Tamscu, August 14, 2025, p. 29
112. 112The Crown’s application does not rest on the “brutal behaviour” category of future threat.
113. 113See also Assessing Dangerousness, at 7-1; R. v. Brown, 2021 ONCA 320 [at para. 28-29; R. v. A.M., 2019 ONSC 5065 at para. 106 [aff’d 2024 O.J. No. 3349]; R. v. Smart, 2025 O.J. No. 4146 at para. 114 re subsec.(iii); R. v. Douglas 2026 SKCA 59 at para 134; Sewap 2025 SKCA 114 at para. 43; R. v. Thongdara, 2025 ONCJ 489 at para. 10; R. v. Nevils, 2024 ONCJ 173 at para. 64.
114. 114I did not assess ss. (a)(i).
115. 115Report of Dr. Wilkie, at p. 52
116. 116Report of Dr. Wilkie, at p. 52
117. 117The oral judgment was intended to try and communicate to Mr. Wiliams and in terms he would understand, the evidence I considered and the conclusions I drew. This written judgment is the formal and final judgment.