COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-70000-534 DATE: 20220331 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – JASON HADFIELD Accused

Counsel: Christine Jenkins, for the Crown Andrew Stastny, for the Accused

HEARD: November 23, 24, 2021 January 17, and March 31, 2022

A.J. O’marra, J.

Ruling on NCR and HRA Applications

[1] Jason Hadfield was found guilty after trial of robbery and manslaughter on October 2, 2020, in the death of Edward Sharron. The Crown has brought an application to have Mr. Hadfield found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under s. 16 (NCR) and if so, designated as a high risk accused (HRA) pursuant to s. 672.64(1) of the Criminal Code.

[2] Both Crown and defence counsel agree that Mr. Hadfield should be found to have been not criminally responsible as a result of mental disorder at the time of the offences based on the psychiatric evidence presented on the hearing, and Mr. Hadfield’s extensive psychiatric history of having a diagnosed mental disorder, schizophrenic. However, defence counsel resists the high risk accused designation sought by the Crown.

Part I – NCR

Index Offences

[3] On October 12, 2018, at approximately 5:55 p.m. Mr. Edward Sharron, 58 entered a gas station convenience store at the intersection of Dundas and Church streets in downtown Toronto to withdraw funds from an ATM. Mr. Hadfield, at the same time entered, exited, and reentered the store displaying an interest in Mr. Sharron as captured on the store security video.

[4] After Mr. Sharron had withdrawn funds and left the store he was followed by Mr. Hadfield as he proceeded to the Dundas Square shopping concourse. Mr. Hadfield kept watch of Mr. Sharron and then followed him back to the gas station parking lot. As Mr. Sharron bent over to put a bag down Mr. Hadfield ran up to him quickly and forcefully kicked him in the shoulder and head area. The kick knocked Mr. Sharron over causing him to fall backwards and strike his head on the payment rendering him unconscious. Mr. Hadfield bent over Mr. Sharron and rifled through his pockets. Passersby tried to intervene, but Mr. Hadfield ran off with Mr. Sharron’s wallet and money.

[5] Mr. Sharron was taken to the hospital where he died from the blunt impact trauma to his head on October 21, 2018.

[6] Mr. Hadfield, then 33 was arrested on October 15, 2018. He was homeless and had been living on the street for approximately a year before his attack on Mr. Sharron. He has an extensive history of mental illness and psychiatric hospital admissions. He was not under treatment or follow up at the time of the offences.

[7] During his detention pending trial he “displayed psychotic symptoms such as significant disorder organization and self-neglect” and on three occasions during his incarceration he was admitted to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Psychiatric Facility in Toronto.

[8] Following the finding of guilt, as result of Mr. Hadfield’s presentation in court, on November 30, 2020, the court ordered a fitness assessment. On February 11, 2021, after hearing viva voce evidence of Dr. M. Choptiany, he was found unfit. At that time, the court ordered a 60-day treatment order. On April 6, 2021, Mr. Hadfield was found to be fit and the court made a keep fit order pursuant to s. 672.29 and for him to be kept at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health, Penetanguishene. On the same date, the court ordered Dr. Philip Klassen to conduct a risk assessment pursuant to s. 752.1.

[9] Following completion of the risk assessment on July 30, 2021, Dr. Klassen in a letter dated August 17, 2021, expressed an opinion based on Mr. Hadfield’s psychiatric files review and interviews with Mr. Hadfield that he may have available a defence of being not criminally responsible due to mental disorder.

[10] Dr. Klassen prepared a further report, dated September 29, 2021, in which he observed that Mr. Hadfield suffers from schizophrenia, a major mental disorder. He noted Mr. Hadfield has an extensive mental health history from the age of 18. He had never been free of psychosis, which included having paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations. When he went untreated, he would become profoundly psychotic and agitated, which gave rise to aggressive behaviour. There was no indication over the multiple hospital admissions and assessments that he has any insight into the fact that he suffers from a mental disorder.

[11] Dr. Klassen noted the following as to the nature of his long-standing delusion and potential defence of being not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder:

. . . this gentleman also has a substantial history of delusional concerns about children being abducted, and his role in preventing this seemingly led to assaultive behaviour in 2017, and a hospitalization in 2018. With the undersigned, Mr. Hadfield reported that the victim, Mr. Sharron, was “very evil”, and was potentially involved in child trafficking. Mr. Hadfield likened Mr. Sharron to Osama bin Laden. Mr. Hadfield offered a delusional rationale for why he was entitled to take Mr. Sharron’s money.

With respect to Mr. Hadfield’s ability to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts or omissions, there are indications that Mr. Hadfield was compromised in this regard, insofar as Mr. Hadfield reports delusional interpretation of Mr. Sharron’s identity, intentions, and actions. I appreciate that Mr. Hadfield reportedly followed Mr. Sharron for some time; while this could be understood to represent anticipation of robbery, these acts could also represent preoccupation with the foregoing delusional material.

[12] In the hearing of this matter on November 23, 2021, Dr. Klassen acknowledged the presence of the two competing motivations for Mr. Hadfield’s actions based on self-report: delusional thinking and material gain. He rejected that Mr. Hadfield’s actions were primarily driven by financial gain, but rather, delusional thinking drove him to attack the victim at the material time. Mr. Hadfield’s delusional misrepresentation of Mr. Sharron’s identity, intentions and actions compromised his appreciation of his actions, and he could not make a rational choice. Although, Mr. Hadfield appreciated his actions were legally wrong, as a result of his delusional beliefs, he did not appreciate what he did was morally wrong. In fact, in his mind his actions were morally upstanding. Dr. Klassen relied on the following factors for his opinion:

• Mr. Hadfield had a long-documented history of severe mental disorder dating back to 2003.
• Prior references to the same delusional beliefs about child abduction date back to at least 2016 which included an assessment conducted by Dr. Mishra in advance of his trial in 2020. Accordingly, his delusional belief is not a “recent phenomenon”.
• While Mr. Hadfield was able to answer specific pointed questions about legal wrongfulness during interviews, he would continue to provide further information regarding psychotic material he believed to be true such as the victim being very evil and involved in trafficking children, which significantly impacted his thought process.
• He presented as unwell and psychotic when interviewed by Dr. Klassen in May 2021 even while on anti-psychotic medication. It is important to note that the time of the offences Mr. Hadfield was not on any medication and his condition as a result would have been much worse.
• Mr. Hadfield was not seen to be malingering an issue canvassed and reported on by Dr. Percy Wright, PhD Psych. Mr. Hadfield denies he even suffers from a mental disorder and in Dr. Klassen’s opinion he does not have “delusion of convenience”.
• Organized behaviour (stalking and robbery) and psychosis are not mutually exclusive. Dr. Klassen noted that if Mr. Hadfield believed the victim was a child molester it could be in line with the thinking behind his organization to follow and rob Mr. Sharron.

[13] Dr. Klassen concluded, Mr. Hadfield was so profoundly thought disordered and so fragmented in his reasoning as being justified in his actions, that due to his psychotic illness he was deprived of the ability to know that his act was wrong.

The Law

[14] Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code states no person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a metal disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

[15] In R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 SCR 507 at para. 26 the Supreme Court noted:

The crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not. The inability to make a rational choice may result from a variety of mental disfunctions . . . delusions which make the accused perceive an act which is wrong as right or justifiable, and a disordered condition of the mind which deprives the accused of the ability to rationally evaluate what he is doing.

[16] An accused will be exempt from criminal responsibility if the mental disorder “deprived him of the capacity for rational perception and hence rational choice about the rightness or wrongness of the act.

[17] In this instance, Mr. Hadfield believed as a result of his delusions that his actions were morally upstanding even though he appreciated that the conduct was legally wrong.

[18] I am satisfied that Mr. Hadfield’s mental disorder, which caused him to maintain the delusional belief that the victim was trafficking a child and that his actions were justified, deprived him of the ability to know that his act was wrong or make a rational choice.

[19] On all of the evidence, at the time of the offences, Mr. Hadfield was not criminally responsible as a result of a mental disorder, schizophrenia.

Part II - High Risk Accused Application

HRA Designation of an NCR Accused

[20] In this instance, the Crown has applied pursuant to s. 672.64(1)(a) to have Mr. Hadfield designated as a high-risk accused (HRA) on the grounds that there is a “substantial likelihood” that he will use violence that could endanger the life of or safety of another person. The court may find an accused to be high risk if satisfied:

(i) the accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a serious personal injury offence as defined in subsection 672.81(1.3); (ii) the accused was 18 years of age or over at the time of the commission of the offence; and (iii) there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that could endanger the life of or safety of another person; or (iv) the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

[21] The Crown does not suggest that the offences committed in this case constitute acts of a brutal nature. The issue here as framed by the Crown is whether the court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that could endanger the life of or safety of another person.

[22] The accused was 33 years at the time he committed the serious person injury offences involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person, (s. 672.81(1.3)) and he has been found NCR.

[23] Pursuant to s. 672.64(2) to decide whether to find the accused is a high-risk accused, the court shall consider all relevant evidence, including:

(a) the nature and circumstances of the offence; (b) any pattern of repetitive behaviour of which the offence forms a part; (c) the accused’s current mental condition; (d) the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, including the accused’s willingness to follow treatment; and (e) the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.

[24] Pursuant to s. 672.64(3) if the court finds the accused to be a high risk accused, the court shall make a disposition under s. 672.54(c) which directs the accused to be detained in the custody of a hospital where his detention must not be subject to any condition that would allow him to be absent unless the person in charge of the hospital is of the opinion that it is appropriate for medical reasons or necessary treatment if escorted by a person authorized by the person in charge of the hospital, and there is a structured plan in place that addresses risk to the public.

[25] An NCR accused designated high-risk would be subject to annual reviews by the Review Board in accordance with s. 672.81 and dispositions made only under s. 672.54(c). However, if on holding a hearing the Review Board is satisfied on the basis of any relevant information and an assessment report that there is not a substantial likelihood that the designated high risk accused will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person, the Review Board shall refer the high risk accused finding for review to the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to s. 672.84(1).

[26] If over time and treatment the high risk is substantially reduced there is a pathway to rescinding the designation and the availability of other dispositions under s. 672.54(a), (b) and (c).

[27] The NCR Reform Act which established the provisions relating to the HRA designation came into force on July 11, 2014, and there have been only a few cases that have considered such applications.

[28] In the first reported decision, R. v. Schoenborn, 2017 BCSC 1721 at para. 26 it was noted that the purpose of the HRA regime is to protect the public from NCR accused who are considered dangerous and to present an unacceptably high risk to the public, requiring a further reduction in their liberty in the form of mandatory custodial detention and other restrictions. Further, the court noted that the threat posed by such an accused must be greater than that which would be necessary to make as one of the dispositions available under s. 672.54(b) and (c) for accused who present a “significant threat to the safety of the public”.

[29] In R. v. Schoenborn at para. 44 the court in noting the distinction between the applicable tests, “substantial likelihood” and “significant threat”, quoted comments made by the former Justice Minister Peter MacKay who introduced the reform legislation:

After hearing evidence, a court could make a high-risk NCR accused finding in one of two circumstances. First, the first circumstance is if the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of the public. The standard of “substantial likelihood” in the high-risk designation process is higher than “significant threat” - so we are raising the threshold - which is the test in the disposition-making provision. This distinction serves to differentiate the two processes and ensure that the high-risk NCR accused designation applies only to the most dangerous of individuals.

[30] Section 672.5401 states that for the purposes of making a disposition under s. 672.54 “a significant threat to the safety of the public means a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public”. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious that goes beyond being merely trivial or annoying. The test of “substantial likelihood” under s. 672.64(1) refers to a “level of risk” greater than “a significant threat” for dispositions under ss. 672.54 for non-high-risk NCR accused.

[31] To designate an NCR accused a HRA requires that the court must be satisfied to a high degree of probability on all relevant evidence and factors noted under s. 672.64(2).

[32] Let me now turn to the evidence heard on the application and those factors.

The Nature and Circumstances of these Offences

[33] As noted above, Mr. Hadfield, as found at trial watched Mr. Sharron at the gas station ATM withdraw money and then followed him to a shopping concourse and back to the gas station parking lot. There Mr. Hadfield rushed up to Mr. Sharron as he bent over to put down a parcel and delivered a forceful kick to Mr. Sharron’s head and shoulder area knocking him back, which caused his head to strike the pavement. Mr. Sharron died from injury caused by the blow to the back of his head. As Mr. Hadfield rifled through Mr. Sharron’s pockets an observer tried to intervene however, Mr. Hadfield broke free and as he fled, he was heard to say, “I had to do it man, I had to do it”.

[34] In his assessment interviews with Dr. Klassen, Mr. Hadfield explained his motivation and actions as follows:

Mr. Hadfield said that he’d seen Mr. Sharron around, and that Mr. Sharron was “very evil”, had molested a 13-year or had tried to (wasn’t sure if he had). He stated that Mr. Sharron was “the type of guy who would molest a child and get away with it”. He stated that he had witnessed Mr. Sharron talking to a 13-year-old, and that Mr. Sharron was a gang member. Mr. Hadfield stated that things that he had taken were his own, then stated that he took only money, not cigarettes. He denied ever saying “I had to do it”. He stated that the events wouldn’t have happened if the police had taken his concerns about human trafficking seriously. While rambling and pacing, Mr. Hadfield continued “I needed the money, I was homeless”, and stated that he (the victim) would use it for trafficking.

…. Mr. Hadfield stated that the 13-year-old was Mr. Sharron’s slave, then he would be Mr. Sharron’s slave as well, thus any property that he took from Mr. Sharron was his. Mr. Hadfield stated that in 2016, he went to 52 Division about child trafficking, not about Mr. Sharron specifically but more generally. I asked if there was anything else Mr. Hadfield wanted me to know about this offending and he responded “. . . he was very evil”, asserting that this could be seen on the video. He indicates that Exodus 21 indicates that Mr. Hadfield should not have been punished because he “looked deranged” because he was homeless; Mr. Hadfield felt that analogously, he should not be charged for killing “Bin Laden”, “Edward Sharron had the same kind of destiny”.

[35] In reality Edward (Ted) Sharron, 58 years old was none of the things Mr. Hadfield imagined in his delusional state. Mr. Sharron was a much-loved member of a large family and circle of friends. He came from a Newfoundland family of five brothers and seven sisters. He migrated to Toronto as many did in the 1980s. Found work and worked hard. He fell into difficult times, but always remained connected to his brothers and sisters as attested to in the many victim impact statements submitted to the court on this hearing. He was described as a person who was always there to help others when needed. He had been living at Seaton House, a shelter for the homeless, but a few months before his death he had moved into his own bachelor apartment where he continued to welcome family and friends. He has been described by his family as a good hearted, honourable man, whose inexplicable death has left a grievous void in their lives.

[36] The violent attack by Mr. Hadfield on Mr. Sharron, a complete stranger to him, was without warning or provocation driven by his delusional beliefs.

A Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour

[37] Mr. Hadfield has an extensive criminal record for non-compliance with court orders and convictions for violent offences.

[38] Since 2014 he has been convicted of 17 offences, including 11 offences that involve varying degrees of violence against strangers and five prior offences of fail to comply with court orders. At the time of the index offence, October 12, 2018, Mr. Hadfield was on six probation orders and a recognizance, all but one imposed because of his assaultive behaviour against others.

[39] The question posed is, has Mr. Hadfield demonstrated a repetitive pattern of acting out violently in committing assaults against others?

[40] In R. v. Schoenborn, 2017 BCSC 1721 at para. 118 the court noted:

The court should consider the type of conduct involved, who the victims generally were, and what motivated the accused. There is no requirement that the behaviour in the pattern be objectively serious or comparatively serious. In comparing different incidents in an alleged pattern of repetitive behaviour, the court must consider the context and surrounding circumstances in which the behaviour occurred. In particular, the court should consider the accused’s mental state at the time of the index offence and at the time of the other incidents alleged to comprise the rest of the pattern.

[41] In R. v. Hogg, 2011 ONCA 840 at para. 40 the Ontario Court of Appeal in considering the issue of a pattern of repetitive behaviour in a dangerous offender context, stated:

The pattern of repetitive behaviour that includes the predicate offence has to contain enough of the same elements of unrestrained dangerous conduct to be able to predict that the offender will likely offend in the same way in the future.

[42] Further, it was noted that the offences need not be the same in every detail.

[43] On January 20, 2016, Mr. Hadfield attempted to board a taxi and became engaged in an argument with the driver. As the driver attempted to kick and swing at Mr. Hadfield, he responded by punching the driver in the chin knocking him unconscious. Mr. Hadfield plead guilty to a simple assault.

[44] On May 7, 2016, Mr. Hadfield was involved in a dispute with a woman, a domestic partner, in High Park, which led to a complaint being made because of his screaming, and swearing causing a disturbance. The police, on investigating the situation, found that he was in contravention of a bail order, which directed him to have no contact with the woman. The order had been made after he was charged with having assaulted her on March 7, 2016. In attempting to arrest Mr. Hadfield he pulled away from the police officer, which led to a short foot chase. When he was caught, he kicked and punched at the officer to prevent his arrest.

[45] On June 15, 2016, when Mr. Hadfield was in custody at Old City Hall courthouse, after his court appearance while on route to a transport vehicle without warning he spat in the court officer’s face.

[46] On November 22, 2016, Mr. Hadfield swaying and stumbling approached a 17-year-old youth at a grocery store parking lot and asked him for money. The youth pushed him away. As the youth walked away Mr. Hadfield ran up to him and with a rock in his hand struck him on the left side of his head. The blow caused the youth to fall onto the parking lot and lose consciousness. Mr. Hadfield stumbled away from the scene but was arrested a short time later. The youth, bleeding from his head, was taken to the hospital where he received stitches to close the wound. He was left with a scar on his left eyebrow from the attack. Mr. Hadfield pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon.

[47] On August 13, 2017, Mr. Hadfield entered a restaurant and asked the manager for free food and said he wanted to buy beer. Both requests were denied. Then Mr. Hadfield said he wanted to use the washroom and again he was denied. He pushed the manager out of the way and went to the washroom. A patron said he was going to call the police at which point Mr. Hadfield fled the restaurant and he was arrested a short distance away for assault and failing to comply with two probation orders.

[48] On October 28, 2017, police responded to a disorderly person call at a gas station. On arrival they found Mr. Hadfield and investigated for causing a disturbance. There was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. As he was being arrested, he became belligerent and uncooperative. When he was placed into the police cruiser he smashed a window in the vehicle using his head. At the police station he spat on the police officer.

[49] On January 23, 2018, during an incident at the Seaton House Shelter he smashed a window and spat on a staff member.

[50] On September 13, 2018, Mr. Hadfield accosted a female who had been riding her bike to work. When she stopped at an intersection, he approached her and asked for money. When she said she did not have any he called her a “bitch” and without warning spit in her eye. When she said she was going to call the police he told her, “Do it bitch” and then spit on her again, hitting her mouth. Mr. Hadfield was arrested by the police a short distance away for assault.

[51] On September 26, 2018, Mr. Hadfield grabbed a prepaid credit card from the victim inside a gas station store. The victim chased after him and once outside there was a physical struggle which left the victim with a scratch to his eye. Mr. Hadfield fled the area with the card, however, he was identified by use of the store surveillance video and subsequently arrested.

[52] The next day on September 27, 2018, a security guard found Mr. Hadfield tipping over garbage cans and was told to leave. A short time later, Mr. Hadfield returned with a bottle in his hand and approached the security guard. He threw it at him but missed. Then he picked up a rock (paving stone) and raising it over his head he tried to strike the security guard, but he was tackled to the ground and arrested. He spat in the security guard’s face.

[53] Then, three weeks later, on October 12, 2018, Mr. Hadfield committed the index offence of attacking Mr. Sharron to rob him by kicking him in the shoulder and head area knocking him back, rendering him unconscious as his head hit the pavement.

[54] The Crown submits that Mr. Hadfield has shown a propensity to use violence, or threats of violence, without provocation against strangers in the community. From January 2016 to October 12, 2018, Mr. Hadfield demonstrated aggressive and assaultive behaviour toward strangers. Five of the instances, involved acts of violence in what appear to have been attempts to obtain material and personal gain. Three of the assaults he committed involved blows which rendered the victims unconscious - the taxi driver, the youth, and the deceased.

[55] Counsel for Mr. Hadfield concedes that the Crown has established a level of pattern but one that in his submission is perhaps less pronounced then might be required for a high risk accused designation. He contrasts the level of violence displayed by Mr. Hadfield with that of the accused in cases such as R. v. Grant, 2018 ONSC 3028 and Re Cousineau, 2021 ONCA 760 in which the NCR accused were designated HRA.

[56] In Grant the accused, diagnosed schizophrenic, committed a number of offences over many years involving knife attacks against his stepfather without provocation, except for his delusional belief the attacks were necessary. In the index offence in 2015 he attacked and stabbed his stepfather and mother believing they had committed wicked acts upon his children. He was found NCR. He did not believe he was mentally ill, needed treatment or that the medication received did anything for him. He continued to have the same delusional beliefs about his family members. The court found there was a significant probability that at the earliest opportunity he would discontinue medication and treatment, and violently cause harm to his stepfather and other family members. He was designated an HRA.

[57] In Cousineau, the accused, diagnosed schizophrenic with a history of violence linked to his mental illness had been found NCR previously for offences of using and being in possession of weapons. He was discharged on April 21, 2015. Following his absolute discharge, Mr. Cousineau did nothing to address his illness, and his mental state declined dramatically. He became acutely delusional. He was socially distant and attempted to treat his chronic insomnia with cannabis. On March 7, 2017, acting on psychotic persecutorial delusions, Mr. Cousineau brutally stabbed to death two elderly neighbours who had befriended him. The trial judge found that Mr. Cousineau qualified for the designation on both grounds - there was a substantial likelihood he would use violence that could endanger the life of or safety of another person and the homicides were “of such a brutal nature to indicate a risk of grave physical harm to another person”.

[58] Counsel submits that in these cases, the level and seriousness of the pattern of violent offences committed by the accused, both diagnosed with schizophrenia, treatment resistant and subject to delusions, were much more severe than in this instance.

[59] While Mr. Hadfield’s victims and use of weapons have been different than those of Grant and Cousineau there has been a repetitive pattern to his impulsive and unprovoked use of violence against strangers, some of which have involved the use of rocks, bottles, fists and feet.

The Accused’s Current Mental Condition

[60] In his report dated July 30, 2021, Dr. Klassen states that Mr. Hadfield has a severe and treatment resistant psychotic illness, schizophrenia. Mr. Hadfield has a profound and enduring lack of insight into his condition and believes he does not need mental health care.

[61] When Mr. Hadfield was seen by Dr. Klassen at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health, Maximum Security Psychiatric Facility, for assessment in this matter he presented as “significantly psychotic” and “actively unwell” despite having received psychiatric treatment including injectable antipsychotic medication.

[62] Dr. Klassen described his illness as “one of the most severe cases he has dealt with”. A review of the institutional records reveals a “lengthy and essentially unbroken history of significant grandiose and paranoid delusions, auditory hallucinations, substantial thought disorder and conceptual disorganization, and functional decline”. He noted that it is unlikely that he had ever been free of psychosis since the start of his many hospitalizations in 2003 when he was 18. He has been certainly psychotic over the last five to seven years and it appears his illness has worsened over time, “consistent with what some people experience when they suffer extended periods of untreated psychosis”.

Past Treatment and Willingness to Follow Treatment

[63] Since his first hospitalized for mental health issues in 2003 he has been hospitalized at a minimum of 24 times. Over the past 18 years during which Mr. Hadfield has been involved with the mental health and criminal justice systems, including use of community treatment orders, being supported by an ACT team (Active Community Treatment program), arrests under the Mental Health Act, repeated hospitalizations, criminal charges, supervision by probation and numerous incarcerations he continues to have a “profound and enduring” lack of insight into his condition. After each hospitalization, receipt of treatment, and release into the community he would discontinue medication, reject the community supports available to him, use substances, and as a result of some combination of psychotic symptoms, active addictions, and poverty from living on the street he would become volatile and/or aggressive.

[64] In Dr. Klassen’s view Mr. Hadfield’s illness has likely “plateaued in terms of severity” at “a more treatment resistant point”.

[65] While at Waypoint Mr. Hadfield received Clozapine, a powerful antipsychotic medication which appeared to have improved his presentation. He did not manifest any aggressive behaviour, became more socially engaged and participated in activities and he was polite and cooperative. However, once he returned to a detention facility, he discontinued medication, which led to his rapid decline.

[66] Dr. Klassen noted that treatment using Clozapine is difficult for people not engaged in their treatment for several reasons. First, it is an oral medication that has to be taken daily. Second, due to the potential for serious side effects, to qualify for the medication the patient must submit to blood tests. Further, with non-compliance it leaves the system quickly and ceases to have anti-psychotic effect. In Mr. Hadfield’s case, he would become ill within a couple of days after not taking the medication.

Opinions of Experts who have Examined the Accused

[67] In assessing Mr. Hadfield’s risk to reoffend violently, in addition to his clinical judgment, Dr. Klassen considered the results of a number of actuarial based risk assessment instruments – the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), Violent Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG-R), and the Historical Clinical Risk Management (HCR-20). In a review of the results Dr. Klassen opined:

Qualitatively, absent effective treatment and aggressive risk management interventions, this gentleman’s risk of violence is high. With effective treatment and environmental controls this gentleman’s violence risk might be described as moderately high (similar scoring persons reoffend at a rate of 40 percent to 50 percent over multi-year follow up).

[68] Further, he notes, “by and large the severity of Mr. Hadfield’s violence has been moderate, though with, clearly, a very unfortunate outcome laterally”, the death of Mr. Sharron.

[69] Dr. Klassen stated the following in his July 30, 2021, report:

Given the risk appraisal above, I am of the opinion that, in an untreated or undertreated state, and absent external controls, this gentleman is likely to recidivate violently. If this gentleman is effectively treated and can be effectively risk managed within a framework of external controls, then I would submit that the risk is still substantial, although I could not endorse probability (consistent with extended periods of time in hospital without direct aggressive behaviour).

[70] Based on Mr. Hadfield’s history Dr. Klassen concluded that there is a discernible pathway to reoffence. Absent external controls and supervision he would gravitate away from treatment, reject supports, start using substances, become volatile and/or aggressive, then engage in aggressive behaviour as a result of “some combination of active psychotic symptoms, active addictions, and poverty”. He concluded that Mr. Hadfield “must at all times be under supervision and in a structured environment and for the foreseeable future should not be housed in anything other than a supervised facility with observed administration of medication.

[71] Counsel for Mr. Hadfield noted that while Dr. Klassen was very clear in his evidence-in-chief during the hearing that while Mr. Hadfield is likely to reoffend in some violent way, he could not predict the “severity” of any reoffence scenario as the severity of his offending has varied in the past ranging from pushing and spitting to the index offence of his assault leading to Mr. Sharron’s death.

[72] Counsel submits that the substantial likelihood of the use of violence must be such that it could “endanger the life or safety of another person”. The likely use of violence must be of a significant degree that it impacts public safety in a manner beyond the threshold determination of the accused being a “significant threat to the safety of the public” as contemplated under the NCR disposition provision, s. 672.54.

[73] I find the observation made in Schoenborn at para. 115 helpful:

. . . there is no requirement of objective seriousness or a comparative level of seriousness between the behaviour in the pattern. Rather, the objective level of seriousness of the past behaviour and the index offence are among the many factors the court can consider in determining whether the types of conduct involved in the various offences alleged to comprise a pattern are sufficiently similar to be considered as such.

[74] Although Mr. Hadfield’s pattern of aggressive behaviour consists of some relatively minor assaults such as pushing, scratching and spitting, which on a spectrum of the use of violence may be considered trivial and annoying, however other assaults committed have been more serious in the result; punching, striking with a stone, and kicking others resulting in the unconsciousness of the victim, with the latterly assault causing Mr. Sharron’s death. A serious pattern of repetitive assaultive behaviour.

[75] Since 2013 Mr. Hadfield has a history of experiencing psychosis and delusions. He has had repeated hospitalization due to psychotic disorganized delusions during which he has been treated with antipsychotic medication but continued to lack insight into his condition. In the community for a period of time he was seen by an Active Community Treatment team however, due to his treatment resistance and adherence to treatment he would become a psychotic and end up living on the street homeless. He would approach strangers and due to his aggressive behaviour confrontation would occur.

[76] Mr. Hadfield has a severe treatment resistant psychotic illness, schizophrenia. He has a profound and enduring lack of insight into his condition and believes he does not need mental health care.

[77] Absent a structured setting and direct supervision, he would discontinue treatment and become psychotic and delusional and become volatile and aggressive, the consequences of which can be severe. His past has shown that when untreated and psychotic he has displayed a dangerous pattern of the use of violence that could endanger the life of or safety of another person.

[78] I am satisfied to a high degree of probability on all of the evidence that unrestrained and untreated Mr. Hadfield will use violence that could endanger the life of or safety of another person.

[79] He shall be designated a high-risk accused for the purpose of disposition as directed by s. 672.64(3) that he be detained in the custody of a hospital where his detention must not be subject to any condition that would allow him to be absent unless the person in charge of the hospital is of the opinion that it is appropriate for medical reasons or necessary treatment if escorted by a person authorized by the person in charge of the hospital, and there is a structured plan in place that addresses risk to the public.

A. J. O’Marra J.

Released: March 31, 2022