ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE DATE: 2024 08 16 COURT FILE No.: Newmarket 998 23 91104957 and 998 23 91105833
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
MARK ANINON
Before: Justice Marcella Henschel Heard on: April 23, 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on: August 16, 2024
Counsel: Mr. Thompson Hamilton................................................................... counsel for the Crown Ms. Rumsha Siddiqui.......................................... counsel for the accused Mark Aninon
HENSCHEL J.:
A. Overview
[1] On April 23, 2024, Mark Aninon plead not guilty to attempting to murder Mark Cabelin on June 6, 2023, by stabbing him, contrary to s. 239 of the Criminal Code. He also plead not guilty to assaulting Robert Beare with a weapon on July 9, 2023, contrary to s. 267 of the Criminal Code. Following the not guilty pleas, an agreed statement of facts was filed. The facts agreed by the parties establish the actus reus of the offences.
[2] There is no dispute that Mr. Cabelin and Mr. Beare were innocent victims of violent unprovoked attacks by Mr. Aninon.
[3] Following the attacks, Mr. Aninon was assessed by Dr. Misha Hartfeil, a forensic psychiatrist, at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences. She concluded Mr. Aninon was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offences and was not criminally responsible.
[4] Dr. Hartfeil testified on April 23, 2024, and adopted her January 12, 2024 report. She confirmed her opinion that Mr. Aninon was not criminally responsible. The parties jointly recommended that I find Mr. Aninon not criminally responsible for both counts and that the matter be remitted to the Review Board for disposition.
[5] On April 23, 2024, I agreed with the joint recommendation and found Mr. Aninon not criminally responsible. I declined to hold a disposition hearing and Mr. Aninon was remanded to the Review Board. These are my reasons.
B. Summary of the Facts
Summary of Agreed Statement of Facts Regarding Stabbing of Mark Cabelin
[6] In June 2023, 19-year-old Mark Aninon was working as a cook at Made in Mexico, a restaurant on Main Street in Newmarket. Mark Cabelin was also a cook at Made in Mexico. On June 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon finished his shift at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Cabelin started his shift at 4:00 p.m. Shortly after starting work Mr. Cabelin went to the kitchen and Mr. Aninon approached him and asked him, speaking in Tagalog, “What do you want to do with your life?” or “What’s the plan”. Mr. Cabelin said he wanted to go to school. Mr. Aninon responded that he did not know what he wanted to do with his own life and suddenly, and without warning, stabbed Mr. Cabelin twice in the abdomen. He used a knife with a four-inch blade. Mr. Cabelin was seriously wounded.
[7] Mr. Cabelin was rushed to hospital with life threatening injuries. He was bleeding extensively and required emergency surgery. He suffered serious injury to one kidney, which was removed, as well as serious injury to his small and large intestine.
[8] He was hospitalized for a significant period. On June 15, 2023, the officer in charge of the investigation learned Mr. Cabelin had completed his surgeries, and was no longer intubated, but he required a feeding tube. He was heavily medicated and somewhat lucid but could barely whisper.
[9] On June 9, 2023, after the stabbing, the police received information from Mr. Aninon’s brother, Antonio, that Mr. Aninon was at home. Police rushed to his home and Mr. Aninon and his father came out of the house. Mark Aninon was arrested for attempted murder. During the search of Mr. Aninon incident to his arrest the police located the folding knife used by Mr. Aninon to stab Mr. Cabelin in the pocket of his hoody. Mr. Aninon’s clothing, seized by police, was bloody.
[10] Mr. Cabelin and Mr. Aninon knew each other for some time prior to the stabbing. They were co-workers and friends. They did not have any arguments, and sometimes spent time together outside of work.
[11] Mr. Aninon made a statement to the police after speaking with a lawyer in which he admitted being in the kitchen of Made in Mexico after his shift. He said he felt threatened and stabbed Mr. Cabelin in self-defence. When asked to explain what made him feel threatened, he said he did not know. He admitted bringing a knife to work. He described it as a fresh knife. He said he pulled it out in the kitchen. He agreed with the detective that it was a mistake. He said he was sorry but maintained he felt threatened. He would not or could not elaborate as to why.
[12] When shown a picture of the knife seized from him, Mr. Aninon said, “This is personal” and would not elaborate on what he meant, other than saying it was “straight personal”, and it was “very personal”, apparently in relation to a conflict between he and Mr. Cabelin. The officer asked him if the conflict was in relation to work, money, drugs, or girls. Mr. Aninon replied that it was none of those things. He said it was not trash talking or being embarrassed. He said there was no beef between them.
[13] During the interview, Mr. Aninon’s affect was flat, and he was slow to answer questions.
[14] The parties agree Mark Aninon stabbed Mark Cabelin and was trying to kill him for reasons that were unclear.
[15] Mr. Cabelin was significantly impacted by the stabbing. In addition to his serious physical injuries, he has been significantly impacted psychologically, emotionally, and financially. Prior to the offence he was helping to support his family. The stabbing will have a significant ongoing impact on Mr. Cabelin in the future.
Mark Cabelin’s Self-Report to Dr. Hartfeil and Ms. Marcus Regarding Stabbing of Mark Cabelin
[16] Mr. Aninon told Dr. Hartfeil that he met Mark Cabelin several months before they worked together at Made in Mexico. He said they never got along well but denied any overt conflict prior to the stabbing. He said he worked a shift with Mr. Cabelin two days prior to the stabbing and at some point during the shift Mr. Cabelin bumped into him with his elbow. Mr. Aninon said he saw an angry look on Mr. Cabelin’s face, and he said Mr. Cabelin stared at him. He said he believed Mark bumped into him intentionally and that Mr. Cabelin was going to hurt him because of the way “he acted towards me”. He was unable to elaborate. Mr. Aninon told Dr. Hartfeil he felt threatened by Mark Cabelin but could not explain why. He said he wanted to get back at Mr. Cabelin but also said he felt the need to defend himself.
[17] Mr. Aninon told Dr. Hartfeil that over the next two days he thought about stabbing or killing Mark. He tried to push the idea out of his head but was unable to do so. He did not work on June 8, 2023, and was scheduled to work a split shift on June 9, 2023, but gave the second half of the June 9, 2023, shift away. He said he felt scared of working another shift with Mr. Cabelin, but also said he gave away the shift so he could rest.
[18] On June 8, Mr. Aninon said he spent the day at home and tried to distract himself but was unable to do so. On June 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon said his shift was normal and after his shift he went to a convenience store and purchased a pocketknife. He returned to the restaurant to wait for Mr. Cabelin. When he arrived for work at the restaurant, Mr. Aninon approached him. He said Mr. Cabelin looked “normal”, not “angry”. Mr. Aninon said he did not feel immediately threatened by Mr. Cabelin, but still believed Mr. Cabelin would probably do something to hurt him, and he needed to defend himself. Mr. Aninon made contradictory statements about whether he felt acutely threatened that day. He said he approached Mr. Cabelin and asked him, “What’s the plan?” and said he “submitted it”, meaning he submitted to the idea of stabbing Mr. Cabelin. He explained that at the moment he stabbed him he was still fighting about it.
[19] Mr. Aninon told Dr. Hartfeil he was not aiming for any particular part of Mr. Cabelin’s body, he just swung the knife. He was inconsistent about whether he intended to kill Mr. Cabelin. When asked what he thought would happen if he stabbed Mr. Cabelin he said, “defend myself”. He gave inconsistent answers regarding whether he thought Mr. Cabelin would be killed or seriously injured. When he said “no” he could not explain why not. He said he felt nothing when he stabbed Mr. Cabelin and nothing when he saw that he was hurt.
[20] When asked if he knew it was a bad thing to do, he said “yes”. When asked why he did it, he said so that Mark wouldn’t “get back at me again”. He clarified that he did it so Mark would not hurt him again. When asked if there was anything at the time that made his action seem like the right thing to do, Mr. Aninon said he was “not sure”. He asserted that he felt threatened by Mark and certain that Mark was going to hurt him again but was unable to provide a clear explanation for why he felt this way. He usually reported that he did not feel acutely or immediately threatened on the day of the offences.
[21] Mr. Aninon also spoke to Ms. G. Marcus, a social worker, at Ontario Shores about stabbing Mr. Cabelin. He told her two days before the offence Mark elbowed him in the back and did not say anything at the time. He told her he felt threatened by Mark and his goal was to kill him. He said he was not scheduled to work the next day but was thinking about how he would get back at him. He felt angry and could not stop his thoughts of hurting him. He said on June 9, 2023, after his shift finished at 3:00 p.m., he bought a pocketknife from a convenience store and then returned to the restaurant and waited at the restaurant’s bar for Mark to arrive. He felt nervous about what was going to happen. When Mark arrived and walked into the restaurant’s kitchen he followed him and stabbed him in the abdomen. He told Ms. Marcus he felt bad afterwards when he saw Mr. Cabelin in pain. He told Ms. Marcus that his brother told him to go home, took him downstairs, and asked another staff member, Michael, to drive him home. When his brother asked him why he stabbed Mark, he told him Mark mistreated him and he felt threatened by him.
Summary of Agreed Statement of Facts Regarding Assault of Robert Beare with Weapon on July 9, 2023
[22] On June 15, 2023, Mr. Aninon was released on a release order with conditions. His parents were his sureties. He was subject to house arrest and was to be under the constant supervision of his parents.
[23] On June 18, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s mother called 911 due to concerns about Mr. Aninon’s mental state. Mr. Aninon was transported to Southlake Hospital voluntarily and was admitted to the psychiatric ward where he remained until July 9, 2023.
[24] On July 9, 2023, Robert Beare, a patient at Southlake Hospital, was seated in a wheelchair watching television. Mr. Aninon approached him from behind, pulled out a pencil and viciously stabbed him four times on the right side of the neck. Mr. Beare did not know Mr. Aninon. The stabbing was entirely unprovoked. Mr. Beare had not had any previous interactions with Mr. Aninon. The attack was recorded by video surveillance cameras at the hospital.
[25] Mr. Beare has limited mobility and was only able to raise his arm to attempt to ward off the attack once it started. Fortunately, the pencil did not deeply penetrate his neck, but the stabbing caused several superficial injuries which were photographed by police.
[26] Mr. Aninon was sedated following the stabbing. He remained in custody between July 9, 2023, until April 23, 2024.
Mr. Aninon’s Self-Report to Dr. Hartfeil and Ms. Marcus Regarding the July 9, 2023 Stabbing
[27] Mr. Aninon denied any conflict with Mr. Beare or other patients prior to him stabbing Mr. Beare on July 9, 2023. He indicated he had no prior interaction with Mr. Beare. He advised Dr. Hartfeil he was experiencing auditory hallucinations which he found distressing although he gave inconsistent accounts of the voices, indicating at different times that they were of his cousin, an old guy, and various others. He gave inconsistent accounts about what they said and whether they commanded him to do anything.
[28] He told Dr. Hartfeil that on July 9, 2023, he came out of his bedroom and went to the day area. He said he had a pencil in his pocket which he had picked up earlier in the day. He denied picking up the pencil with intent to stab anyone. He said he was pacing in the day area and approached an older man in a wheelchair from behind and stabbed him. He said there was “no reason for it”. Mr. Aninon described the action as not wholly volitional saying “Somehow I started stabbing.” He said there was no thought behind it, just a sudden action he did not understand. In a few interviews he said he felt the voices, which were distressing to him, would not stop if he did not take this action.
[29] Mr. Aninon was inconsistent in describing the symptoms present at the time of the stabbing and if they affected his actions. He was perplexed by his actions and said that he had no idea what happened or why it happened.
[30] On January 9, 2024, he told Ms. Marcus that after he was released from custody following the June 9, 2023 stabbing he was home for two days and was brought to Southlake following a seizure. He said his body was shaking and he could not control it. He said at Southlake he stabbed another patient with a pencil. He told Ms. Marcus that he heard voices outside of his mind pushing him to stab him and he could not stop himself. The voices said, “Do it, do it, even if you don’t want to”.
C. The Verdict of Not Criminally Responsible Pursuant to Section 16 of the Criminal Code
[31] To be found guilty of a criminal offence an individual must commit the wrongful act (actus reus) and must have a guilty mind (mens rea). “To be legally blameworthy, the law has always recognized that a person must have the capacity to form the requisite criminal intent and be capable of exercising free will.”
[32] An accused person is presumed to be sane and to have the capacity for criminal liability. Where a party asserts that they lack capacity and are not criminally responsible, they bear the burden of establishing the dual elements that they suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the offence and that the mental disorder rendered them incapable of forming the necessary criminal intent on a balance of probabilities.
[33] Section 16 of the Criminal Code provides for the verdict of not criminally responsible as follows:
16.(1) Defence of mental disorder – No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
(2) Presumption – Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.
(3) Burden of Proof – The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder, so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.
[34] Under s. 16 of the Criminal Code, if a person establishes that they committed a wrongful act while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered them incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of their actions, or of knowing the acts were wrong, they are not criminally responsible because they lack the necessary criminal intent.
[35] The determination of whether an accused is not criminally responsible involves a two-step inquiry. The first step focuses on the accused’s mental condition. The second focuses on the impact of the mental condition on the accused’s capacity. There must be an evidentiary link between the mental disorder and the accused’s capacity to understand the physical nature, character, and consequences of the act, or between the mental disorder and the accused’s capacity to choose between right and wrong.
[36] To be found not criminally responsible, an accused must establish on a balance of probabilities that:
i.) The accused committed the act or omission while suffering from a mental disorder; and
ii.) At the time of the offence the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of:
a. Appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission; or
b. knowing that the act or omission was wrong.
[37] At step one, the court must be satisfied that the accused suffered from a “mental disorder” at the time of the commission of the act or omission. “Mental disorder” is defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code, as a “disease of the mind”. A disease of the mind is a broad term which encompasses any illness, disorder, or abnormal condition that impairs a person’s mind or its functioning. It does not include transitory mental states caused by external factors such as concussion, and, with limited exceptions, does not include self-induced intoxication by alcohol or drugs.
[38] Whether a particular condition can be characterized as a “disease of the mind” is a question of law, rather than a fact determined by a medical expert.
[39] If a mental condition falls within the legal definition of disease of the mind, it is for the trier of fact to decide whether when the act was committed the accused suffered from the mental disorder, and if so whether the mental disorder rendered him or her incapable of appreciating the nature and consequences of the act or of knowing that it was wrong. Expert psychiatric evidence while important is not determinative.
[40] I am satisfied that schizophrenia is well recognized as a mental disorder and constitutes a disease of the mind pursuant to s. 2 of the Criminal Code. See for example R. v. Ratti, R. v. Landry, where the accused persons suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and were found to suffer from mental disorders.
Step 2 – Incapable of Appreciating the Nature and Quality of the Act
[41] Where step one is proven – that at the time of the offence the accused suffered from a mental disorder – an accused can only be found not criminally responsible if, at step two, the trier of fact is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the mental disorder rendered the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, or of knowing that the act or omission was wrong.
[42] The term “appreciating”, in the first branch of step two, requires a higher level of understanding than “to know”. To “appreciate” an accused must have more than a bare awareness of the act that forms the basis of the offence charged. It requires an accused understand the physical nature, character, and consequences of the act. It connotes the ability to measure and foresee the consequences of violent conduct. See R. v. Abbey, at para. 27; Kjeldsen v. R..
Step 2 – Incapable of Knowing that It Was Wrong
[43] Under the second branch of step two a person who lacks the capacity to know that the act he or she is committing is wrong is exempt from criminal responsibility. To know means to be aware of something. The crux of the inquiry is whether the mental disorder at the time of the act deprived the accused of “the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence make a rational choice about whether to do it or not”. Delusions which make an accused person perceive an act which is wrong as right or justifiable, and a disordered condition of the mind that deprives the accused of the ability to rationally evaluate what he or she is doing, may render an accused person incapable of knowing that an act was wrong. See R. v. Oommen, at para. 26.
[44] The “wrongness” inquiry does not take place at a general or abstract level, but rather is directed at the accused’s capacity to understand that his or her actions, in the specific circumstances, would be regarded as wrong according to the moral standards of reasonable members of society. See R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589.
[45] An accused’s subjective but honest belief in the justifiability of the acts – however unreasonable that belief may be – is not sufficient, alone, to ground an NCR defence, because an individual accused’s personal sense of justifiability is not sufficient. The inquiry goes further. The accused person’s mental disorder must also render him or her incapable of knowing that the acts in question are morally wrong as measured against societal standards and therefore incapable of making the choice necessary to act in accordance with those standards. See R. v. Campione, 2015 ONCA 67, at para. 23.
[46] In R. v. Ross, 2009 ONCA 149, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that a subjective belief by the accused that his conduct was justifiable will not spare him from criminal responsibility even if his personal views or beliefs were driven by mental disorder, as long as he or she retained the capacity to know that his or her conduct was regarded as wrong on a societal standard. See R. v. Ross, 2009 ONCA 149, at para. 27.
[47] In R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589, the Ontario Court of Appeal explained at para. 24:
In my view, Oommen, as interpreted in the judgments of this court, holds that an accused who has the capacity to know that society regards his actions as morally wrong and proceeds to commit those acts cannot be said to lack the capacity to know right from wrong. As a result, he is not NCR, even if he believed he had no choice but to act, or that his acts were justified. However, an accused who, through the distorted lens of his mental illness, sees his conduct as justified, not only according to his own view, but also according to the norms of society, lacks the capacity to know that his act is wrong. That accused has an NCR defence. Similarly, an accused who, on account of mental disorder, lacks the capacity to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms lacks the capacity to know his act is wrong and is entitled to an NCR defence.
[48] Both branches of step two require a profound departure from the cognitive capacities of the ordinary person to displace the presumption of sanity.
[49] Under s. 672.34 of the Criminal Code, where a trier of fact determines that an accused committed the act or omission, but at the time was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility pursuant to s.16(1) of the Criminal Code, a verdict of not criminally responsible must be entered.
D. At the Time of the Acts Mr. Aninon Suffered from a Mental Disorder
[50] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that when Mr. Aninon stabbed Mr. Cabelin and Mr. Beare he suffered from a mental disorder.
[51] Dr. Hartfeil was qualified as an expert in forensic psychiatry. She gave expert opinion evidence regarding whether Mr. Aninon suffered from a mental disorder. Mr. Aninon was assessed at the Forensic Assessment Unit at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences as an in-patient between November 16, 2023, and January 12, 2024. The assessment was conducted by a multidisciplinary team which included Dr. Hartfeil, Ms. Marcus, and other hospital staff.
[52] Dr. Hartfeil and Ms. Marcus interviewed Mr. Aninon and his family members. Dr. Hartfeil obtained and considered Mr. Aninon’s medical records from Ontario Shores and the Southlake Regional Health Centre. She also reviewed disclosure materials from the York Regional Police investigation including summaries of the witness and victim statements.
Background Information about Mr. Aninon
[53] From the documentary materials and interviews, Dr. Hartfeil learned that Mr. Aninon was born in the Philippines and immigrated to Canada in 2017 when he was 13 years old. Before his arrest, he lived with his parents and his older brother and sister. He was 19 years old at the time of the offences.
[54] After immigrating to Canada, Mr. Aninon attended Grade 9 to 12 in Newmarket, Ontario. He graduated on time. He planned to attend college in the fall of 2023 but was arrested for the offences in June and July 2023. Mr. Aninon reportedly had no behavioral or academic difficulties during high school.
[55] Mr. Aninon worked at a soap factory during high school and worked at Made in Mexico for four or five years in the kitchen. He worked at Made in Mexico part-time prior to his graduation and after graduation worked full time. He enjoyed his job and liked his co-workers, who included his brother Antonio, and his best friend Michael.
[56] Mr. Aninon advised Dr. Hartfeil that he started dating at the age of 16 and had three or four significant relationships. He was single at the time of the offences.
[57] In terms of recreational activities, Mr. Aninon advised Dr. Hartfeil that he enjoyed video games. He said he drank alcohol occasionally with friends and smoked cannabis about three times a week prior to summer 2023 but quit smoking marijuana “before the summer” of 2023 because he was worried about the impact on his lung health and exercise capacity.
[58] After his Southlake admission in June 2023, Mr. Aninon told Southlake Hospital staff that he had stopped using marijuana two months earlier. A urine toxicology screen at Southlake Hospital done on admission was negative for all substances of abuse. Dr. Hartfeil indicated the negative toxicology screen supported his indication that he had stopped using substances at least several days or weeks prior to the June 18, 2023 Southlake Hospital admission.
[59] Mr. Aninon has never previously been charged with any criminal offence. However, in spring 2023 he was involved in a motor vehicle collision and left the scene. He told Dr. Hartfeil he left the scene because he was scared.
Psychiatric History
[60] Mr. Aninon was not taking any medications prior to the offences and had not been diagnosed with any illness. He had no documented mental health history or psychiatric treatment prior June 9, 2023.
Southlake Hospital Admission – June 18, 2023
[61] On June 18, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s mother called 911 because of concerns about his mental state. He was taken to Southlake Hospital and admitted.
[62] The Southlake Hospital records indicate that Mr. Aninon’s mother took him to hospital after an episode of shaking, which she thought may have been a seizure. When he was taken to Southlake his family described several months of “behavioural changes” including “insomnia, disorganization, poor hygiene, and decreased speech”.
[63] Mr. Aninon’s mother reported to hospital staff that Mr. Anion had become progressively more aggressive at home, punching walls, and shouting, and this behaviour was out of character. His mother reported that he told her he felt responsible for Queen Elizabeth’s death. She said his behaviour at home caused his family members to be fearful of him.
[64] Mr. Aninon told one of the psychiatrists that he believed someone “sexually assaulted him, but he “is not really sure how and when” and he was unable to elaborate further.
[65] While at Southlake Hospital, Mr. Aninon was placed in mechanical restraints because he was very disorganized, agitated, and believed he could leave the hospital. He required periods of seclusion to manage his agitation, especially after the July 9, 2023 stabbing. He was described as bewildered and disorganized, with some thought blocking and poverty of speech. He was often unable to answer questions, was very guarded, and had difficulty elaborating on many of his statements.
[66] Prior to the attack on Mr. Beare, on July 7, 2023, Southlake Hospital referred Mr. Aninon to Ontario Shores for a period of stabilization and treatment. The referral never took place because of the July 9, 2023 stabbing. In the referral letter, Mr. Aninon was described as unwell and withdrawn throughout the Southlake admission. The letter indicated he was experiencing auditory hallucinations, including “one male voice telling him that nobody is going to remember him”.
[67] In a June 23, 2023 note, Dr. S. Stokl concluded that Mr. Aninon’s act of stabbing (on June 9, 2023) was caused by psychotic thinking which had been going on for at least two to three weeks. On June 27, 2023, Dr. Stokl noted that Mr. Aninon stated that his co-worker had “taken his elbow and rammed it down the back of his neck”. He told Dr. Stokl that he had the “thought of killing” the co-worker when he stabbed him. He told Dr. Stokl that he was an “UCK” which he clarified meant an “under control killer”. He requested to be discharged as soon as possible because he felt that being in hospital was worsening his condition.
[68] On July 11, 2023, Mr. Aninon spoke with Dr. Stokl about the stabbing incident involving Mr. Beare. Mr. Aninon told Dr. Stokl that it was “not him” who had stabbed Mr. Beare. He said he was “hearing a voice tell him to do this, but mostly that it was not him at the time who committed this act.” He asserted that it was “someone evil inside him”, but he could not tell Dr. Stokl who this was. Mr. Aninon’s mother told Dr. Stokl that Mr. Aninon told her it was “not him who did this, it was someone inside him who attempted to hurt this man for reasons that he does not know.”
[69] While at Southlake, Mr. Aninon was found to be incapable with respect to treatment decisions. His mother agreed to act as his substitute decision maker. Treatment was initiated and he was treated with anti-psychotic medications including Invega Sustenna, oral Invega, Olanzapine, temazepam, and zopiclone. He was placed on a Community Treatment Order (CTO).
[70] According to the Southlake discharge summary, Mr. Aninon endorsed auditory hallucinations as early as 2016, while still residing in the Philippines. His mother advised the admitting psychiatrist that he had been “speaking to nothing” and he reported that he “hears voices in his head and they sometimes tell him to do things, but he would not elaborate on what exactly”. He denied that the voices told him to harm himself or anyone else.
[71] In respect of the June 9, 2023 stabbing, the Southlake discharge summary indicated that Mr. Aninon “believed he was being attacked and persecuted by a co-worker at the restaurant and retaliated by stabbing him with a pocketknife in the leg”.
[72] In respect of the July 9, 2023 stabbing of Mr. Beare, the Southlake discharge summary indicated that “auditory hallucinations were prominent” and that Mr. Aninon responded to an auditory hallucination command to stab a co-patient with a pencil.
[73] At the time of discharge, Mr. Aninon denied any ongoing violent or homicidal ideation. However, “negative” symptoms of schizophrenia were present, including flat affect and poverty of speech.
Ontario Shores Admission
[74] Dr. Hartfeil indicated in her report that while at Ontario Shores, Mr. Aninon was settled and appropriate. He did not engage in threatening, aggressive, violent, or self- harming behaviour and did not pose a behavioural management challenge. He denied active mood or psychotic symptoms. However, Dr. Hartfeil indicated that he continued to present with negative symptoms, including blunted affect and decreased verbal emotional expression.
[75] Mr. Aninon was adherent to prescribed medication during his admission and acknowledged some benefit from the medication. He appeared to have limited ability to articulate prior psychotic experiences and showed limited insight into his symptoms.
[76] Mr. Aninon told Dr. Hartfeil that a few days after he returned home after being released on bail, he had a “seizure” which he described as shaking and feeling out of control of his body. He said he felt normal immediately after the episode.
[77] Mr. Aninon’s family reported that after he returned home from jail in June 2023, he appeared more agitated, was talking to himself, and was acting bizarrely. He denied this, and provided vague and contradictory answers about his family’s report about his behaviour. He initially denied punching walls, but after he was informed that his family had reported this, he acknowledged it. He denied his family’s report that he felt responsible for the death of Queen Elizabeth, saying that he was not responsible for her death, but he felt very sad and cried about her passing and he did not know why.
[78] Mr. Aninon said he generally felt very out of control of his body and emotions around the time of the offences, particularly when admitted to Southlake, but he was unable to say what was causing him to experience such strong and negative emotions. He was inconsistent about whether he felt like someone or something else was controlling his actions.
[79] Dr. Hartfeil indicated that Mr. Aninon gave vague and inconsistent information about when he began to experience auditory hallucinations, including regarding whether it was before or after he was admitted to Southlake Hospital in June 2023. He gave varying accounts about how many voices he heard, whether he recognized them, whether they were family members, and whether they gave him commands. He was not able to resolve the contradictions or provide an explanation for them.
[80] Dr. Hartfeil advised that Mr. Aninon had difficulty explaining his internal experiences and gave the impression of being guarded. Although his thoughts were not grossly disorganized, the inconsistent and concrete nature of his answers sometimes made it difficult to follow his train of thought. He generally denied frank paranoia but reported feeling “threatened” by Mark Cabelin prior to the first stabbing. He was unable or unwilling to elaborate on the way in which he felt threatened.
Information from Marivic Aninon
[81] Ms. Marcus interviewed Mr. Aninon’s mother, who indicated as follows:
- Two weeks before the June 9, 2023 stabbing, Mr. Aninon got into a motor vehicle accident in Toronto. One of his friends was in the passenger seat. After the accident, he came home around 10:00 p.m. He left his car at the scene. He did not seem normal, and she suspected he was using drugs.
- After Mr. Aninon was released from custody, on June 16, 2023, she was in the car with Mr. Aninon and his niece. He asked Mrs. Aninon if she wanted to be a president or a mayor. He asked her the same question later that day.
- Later, on June 16, 2023, Mr. Aninon appeared restless and called out to his mother that he had peed himself. He was shaking and sweating. Mrs. Aninon called 911 and he was taken to Southlake Regional Health Centre. At the hospital he continued to ask his mother if she wanted to be the president or the mayor. He was medically cleared, and they returned home around 2:00 a.m. He slept from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. When he woke up, he was restless, and was asking for his cellphone. He became agitated and his mother called 911. They brought him to Southlake Regional Health Centre, and he was admitted to the Psychiatric Unit.
- Mrs. Aninon spoke to Mr. Aninon after she learned he stabbed another patient with a pencil. He told her that it was not him and that the devil told him to do it.
[82] Ms. Marcus also spoke to Mr. Aninon’s brother, Antonio. He said he noticed changes in his brother after the car accident. He said it was around the same time Mr. Aninon’s relationship with his girlfriend ended. He said that sometimes he seemed normal and other times he was “nuts”. He explained that Mr. Aninon blamed himself for the death of Queen Elizabeth and he would say “We own the world” and talked randomly and cried for no reason. Antonio Aninon reported that he spoke to his brother after the June 9, 2023 stabbing, and Mr. Aninon told him that Mark had bumped into him.
[83] Charles Villanueva, an employee of Made in Mexico and friend of Mr. Aninon, told police investigators that Mr. Aninon “needs help” because he had been having impulsive thoughts and could not control his emotions when he smoked weed. He recounted an incident during which Mr. Aninon was using cannabis and “was imagining he had a gun and was shooting people”.
Conclusions of Dr. Hartfeil
[84] Dr. Hartfeil concluded that Mr. Aninon suffered from schizophrenia, a primary psychotic illness at the time of the offences. She was confident that he had a psychotic illness and was experiencing active, relatively severe psychotic symptoms at the material time of the offences.
[85] In her report, at p. 276, Dr. Hartfeil described schizophrenia as follows:
Schizophrenia is 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 behaviour, or some combination of these. Social and occupation 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 about 80% of individuals…
[86] Dr. Hartfeil further concluded that Mr. Aninon met the criteria for cannabis use disorder in early remission. She concluded that Mr. Aninon’s early and quite heavy use of cannabis appeared to have triggered or exacerbated his psychotic symptoms, which persisted and developed into a bona fide primary psychotic illness.
[87] Dr. Hartfeil observed that Mr. Aninon used cannabis for several years and his friend noted that it seemed to cause a change in his mental state with some degree of paranoia, disorganization, aggression, agitation, and emotional lability. The behavioural and mental status changes persisted after he stopped using cannabis and family and friends noticed that he was more withdrawn, aggressive, angry, agitated, paranoid, bizarre, disorganized, and disheveled. His self-care declined and family noted that he was talking to himself.
[88] Dr. Hartfeil explained that the changes observed by family and friends are typical of the prodromal and early stages of schizophrenia. She indicated that by the time Mr. Aninon was admitted to hospital in June 2023, active symptoms of psychosis were overtly apparent, noting he was described as disorganized, severely agitated, delusional, experiencing auditory hallucinations, and disinhibited. He also exhibited quite severe negative symptoms of schizophrenia, particularly blunted affect, and poverty of speech.
[89] Dr. Hartfeil noted that Mr. Aninon showed a moderate response to treatment. She indicated that “his active psychotic symptoms have attenuated, but his negative symptoms persist. He remains mildly disorganized, perplexed, and has residual paranoia”.
Conclusions Regarding Mental Disorder
[90] I accept Dr. Hartfeil’s opinion evidence that Mr. Aninon suffered from a mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, at the time of the offences. I am satisfied on a balance or probabilities that Mr. Aninon suffered from a mental disorder/disease of the mind at the time of the offences.
[91] Dr. Hartfeil’s diagnosis is supported by extrinsic evidence including:
- The evidence of witnesses, including his mother and brother, who described Mr. Aninon experiencing symptoms typical of schizophrenia prior to, at the time of, and after the offences. As noted by Dr. Hartfeil, Mr. Aninon’s symptoms were severe enough to be noticed by several family members and friends in the weeks leading up to his admission to hospital.
- Mr. Aninon’s age. He was 19 years old at the time of the offences. His age and the evolution of symptoms from more subtle symptoms to florid and frank symptoms is typical of the progress of schizophrenia from the prodromal stage to fully emerged schizophrenia, including active symptoms such as paranoia, and auditory hallucinations.
- Mr. Aninon’s police statement in which he presented with negative symptoms of schizophrenia including paranoia and flat affect.
- The records of Southlake Regional Health Centre. Mr. Aninon was hospitalized nine days after the first offence. As noted by Dr. Hartfeil, there is clear documentation by multiple health care professionals of objectively observable symptoms present immediately after the first offence and at the time of the second offence. While in hospital he was endorsing symptoms such as auditory hallucinations and showed clear signs of psychosis, including blunted affect, disorganization, poverty of speech, thought blocking and agitation. The Southlake records suggest that Mr. Aninon was responding to audio hallucinations at the time of the July 9, 2023 offence.
- Mr. Aninon responded to treatment including anti-psychotic medications. The treatment with anti-psychotic medication resulted in a reduction of Mr. Aninon’s delusional ideation. Nonetheless, negative symptoms persisted and were observed by Dr. Hartfeil and Ms. Marcus while Mr. Aninon was at Ontario Shores. Dr. Hartfeil testified that Mr. Aninon’s response to treatment was typical and supported her diagnosis of schizophrenia.
- The bizarre conduct underlying the offences including paranoia. Mr. Aninon had no history of violence and engaged in two unprovoked attacks on innocent victims. The two attacks occurred within a month of each other. The nature of the conduct supports the presence of an underlying mental disorder and supports the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.
[92] Step one of the test for a finding of not criminally responsible is met. At the time of the offences, Mr. Aninon suffered from schizophrenia, a mental disorder.
E. Mr. Aninon’s Mental Disorder Rendered Him Incapable of Appreciating the Nature and Quality of His Actions or of Knowing that They Were Wrong.
Dr. Hartfeil’s Conclusions Regarding Criminal Responsibility
[93] In respect of both the June 9 and July 9, 2023 attacks, Dr. Hartfeil concluded that Mr. Aninon met the requirements to be found not criminally responsible. She concluded that his mental disorder, schizophrenia, rendered him unable to know that his actions were wrong.
[94] Dr. Hartfeil indicated as follows in respect of the June 9, 2023 attack:
He was admitted to hospital at the time under the Mental Health Act. He had been behaving bizarrely at home, and already stabbed a co-worker incurring his other pending charges. Mr. Aninon was endorsing symptoms such as auditory hallucinations and he was presenting with clear signs of psychosis such as blunted affect, disorganization, poverty of speech, thought blocking, and agitation. …
Mr. Aninon’s inability to now describe his mental state and experiences at and around that time could be due to a variety of factors including guardedness, ongoing residual paranoia, ongoing residual disorganization, a lack of insight into his symptoms, cultural differences in the conceptualization of mental illness, a true poor memory for his experiences because he was in a psychotic and disorganized state at that time, or intentional misrepresentation. It may also be due to some combination of these factors, or other factors besides those listed. As noted in the section above, despite Mr. Aninon’s inconsistency and unreliability in self-reporting his symptoms, I am confident that he does have a psychotic illness and was experiencing active, relatively severe, psychotic symptoms at the material time. …
In my opinion, it is likely that Mr. Aninon was experiencing relatively severe symptoms at the material time and was therefore unable to rationally perceive his environment and engage in rational choice. He was unable, because of his symptoms, to evaluate the wrongfulness of his actions according to the everyday standard of the ordinary person. He was therefore, unable to know that his actions were wrong, and in my opinion, from a psychiatric perspective and on a balance of probabilities, he should have the defence of not criminally responsible available to him for the charges of Assault with a Weapon and fail to comply release order. [Emphasis added]
[95] Regarding the June 9, 2023 stabbing of Mark Cabelin, Dr. Hartfeil indicated as follows:
With respect to the charges he incurred on June 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s active psychotic symptoms were less overtly present. They clearly worsened over the following week, leading up to his admission to hospital and continuing through until he incurred the latter charges and his medications were further optimized….
With the benefit of retrospect, knowing which symptoms Mr. Aninon developed over the subsequent weeks, I think it is more likely than not that Mr. Aninon was experiencing active symptoms such as psychosis, delusions of reference and some disorganization of his thoughts and behaviour….None of Mr. Aninon and Mark’s co-workers indicated any conflict between them prior to the alleged offences. None of them, or even Mark himself, could identify any reason for Mr. Aninon to have stabbed him. Mr. Aninon insisted in his police interview, and during this current assessment, that Mark had intentionally assaulted him days prior, and intended to cause him more harm. However, he appeared wholly unable to explain how he arrived at this belief. His statements about this to police, and during this assessment, were somewhat bizarre (e.g. Repeating the word “personal”) and very vague. This suggests that the foundation for the belief that Mark had intentionally harmed him and intended to harm him again, was likely psychotic in nature.
…In his interview with police, though, he repeatedly stated that he felt “threatened” and felt the need to “defend” himself. Mr. Anion has neither a history nor reputation for being impulsive, reactive, violent, or confrontational. His family and friends all reported shock at his actions. He is not an individual who has previously responded to provocation or bullying by engaging in violence or seeking revenge. This would be out of character for him, and stabbing a person in the abdomen in response to being bumped into with an elbow is an extreme reaction, even if one does tend to resolve conflict with aggression.
Given the context of this incident, the subsequent progressive deterioration of Mr. Aninon’s mental state, and a relative lack of evidence to support another rational motive for Mr. Aninon’s actions, it is my opinion that Mr. Aninon’s actions towards Mark were likely motivated by a psychotic interpretation of Mark’s behaviour and intentions; i.e. that Mr. Aninon held a fixed false belief at the material time that Mark had harmed him intentionally and intended to harm him again. As such, he felt the need to defend himself, and as he reported, he felt that he would be unable to do so in a hand-to-hand fight without weapons, so he felt justified in using a weapon to attack Mark in an effort to fend off a future attack. For this reason, Mr. Aninon was unable to know that his actions were wrong; they were morally and legally justified, from his perspective as perceived self-defense. For this reason, it is my opinion from a psychiatric perspective on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Aninon was not criminally responsible for the charges of Attempt Murder and Aggravated Assault.
Analysis and Conclusions
[96] In her report Dr. Hartfeil noted that Mr. Aninon was unable or unwilling to discuss his mental state at the time of the offences and made inconsistent statements about his motivation and internal experiences. This made it more difficult to determine his mental state at the time of the offences and his motivation. However, Dr. Hartfeil concluded it was unlikely that Mr. Aninon was malingering.
[97] Dr. Hartfeil testified that it is not uncommon for individuals suffering from schizophrenia to have difficulty articulating what they were feeling at the time of their actions.
[98] In this case, there is reliable independent contemporaneous documentation of Mr. Aninon’s active psychotic symptoms while he was at Southlake Hospital shortly after the first offence, and at the time of the second offence. In my view, these records, in the context of the evidence, confirm Mr. Aninon was severely impacted by psychotic symptoms.
[99] I am satisfied that Mr. Aninon’s inability to describe his mental state and the inconsistencies were due to his ongoing psychotic symptoms following the offences, including but not limited to residual paranoia, residual disorganization, and poverty of speech. I accept that Mr. Aninon was perplexed by his own conduct and the impact of his psychotic symptoms, and he did not malinger or fabricate mental illness.
[100] I agree with Dr. Hartfeil’s conclusions, and the joint recommendation of the parties, that Mr. Aninon should be found not criminally responsible.
[101] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Aninon’s mental disorder, schizophrenia, rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions on June 9, 2023 were wrong.
[102] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Aninon’s mental disorder, schizophrenia, rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions and incapable of knowing that his actions on July 9, 2023 were wrong.
[103] In my view, the two offences must not be considered in isolation. The evidence of Mr. Aninon’s deteriorating mental state prior to June 9, 2023, the nature of his conduct on June 9, 2023, his mental state on June 18, 2023 and while at Southlake Regional Health Centre, his conduct on July 9, 2023, and his mental state thereafter and during the assessment at Ontario Shores must be considered in totality.
[104] The evidence that Mr. Aninon was not criminally responsible at the time of the June 9, 2023 offence would be less compelling if the offence was viewed in isolation because, at the time of the June 9, 2023 attack, Mr. Aninon’s psychotic symptoms, although present, were less pronounced than they became in the days after the attack.
[105] However, when the offence is viewed in the context of the significant symptoms that emerged in the days following the attack and in context of the second attack against Mr. Beare on July 9, 2023, I have no doubt, and am satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that when Mr. Aninon attacked Mr. Cabelin, his mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong.
[106] I am satisfied that on June 9, 2023, when Mr. Aninon attacked Mr. Cabelin, he was severely impacted by psychotic symptoms, including paranoia, that were the result of his mental disorder, schizophrenia. His psychotic symptoms caused him to irrationally believe he was in danger and needed to defend himself from Mr. Cabelin. The active symptoms of schizophrenia deprived him of the capacity present in the ordinary person to know the act of stabbing Mr. Cabelin was wrong having regard to the everyday standards of the ordinary person. His psychotic symptoms drove him to act as he did because he falsely believed he needed to protect himself and that his actions were necessary and justified. He lacked the capacity to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms.
[107] As documented by the Southlake Records, I find as a fact, that on July 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon was severely impacted by psychotic symptoms when he stabbed Mr. Beare repeatedly with a pencil. The psychotic symptoms included auditory hallucinations which drove Mr. Aninon to stab Mr. Beare.
[108] On July 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s symptoms were so profound that he was not able to appreciate the physical nature, character, and consequences of his actions. Mr. Aninon described the action as not wholly volitional saying “Somehow I started stabbing.” He said there was no thought behind it, just a sudden action he did not understand. In my view, he was so profoundly unwell that he could not measure or foresee the consequences of his violent conduct.
[109] I also find that on July 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing his act of stabbing Mr. Beare was wrong having regard to the everyday standards of the ordinary person. Because of his mental disorder he lacked the capacity to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms. The severe delusions left him unable to rationally evaluate what he was doing.
[110] There was no motive for either unprovoked attack and no rational explanation for Mr. Aninon’s actions. Mr. Aninon’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of rationally deciding whether his actions were right or wrong or of making a rational choice about whether to do the act or not. On June 9, 2023, and July 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon experienced a profound departure from the cognitive capacities of the ordinary person.
[111] My conclusions are supported by the Supreme Court of Canada’s analysis in Oommen, which has factual similarities to the present case. In Oommen the accused suffered from a mental disorder that caused paranoid delusions. Because of his delusions, he became convinced that members of a local union were conspiring to destroy him and had surrounded his residence with the intention of killing him. He believed the victim, who was staying at his apartment, was one of the conspirators and that he had to kill her to prevent her from killing him. He shot the victim as she slept on the floor. As in this case, the evidence disclosed no rational motive for the killing.
[112] The trial judge found that because Mr. Oommen had the general capacity to distinguish right from wrong, he was not relieved from criminal responsibility under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code, even though on the night of the killing his delusions lead him to believe the killing was necessary and justified and he no choice but to do what he did. The Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after finding that the trial judge had misinterpreted s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code.
[113] The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and agreed that the trial judge erred in his interpretation of s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court held the phrase “knowing that it was wrong” refers not only to the capacity for abstract knowledge that killing would be viewed as wrong by society, but extends to the inability of an accused to rationally apply knowledge of right and wrong and to conclude that the act in question is one which one ought not to do. See Oommen, at para. 20.
[114] At para. 21 the Supreme Court stated:
A review of the history of our insanity provision and the cases indicates that the inquiry focuses not on general capacity to know right from wrong, but rather on the ability to know that a particular act was wrong in the circumstances. The accused must possess the intellectual ability to know right from wrong in the abstract sense. But he or she must also possess the ability to apply that knowledge in a rational way to the alleged criminal act.
[115] Ultimately, in Oommen, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal finding the evidence could support a finding that the accused did not have the capacity of knowing that his act was wrong. The Court held the evidence could establish the accused felt he was under imminent danger of being killed if he did not kill the victim first, and for that reason believed that the act of killing the victim was justified. Consequently, the delusion deprived the accused of the ability to know that his act was wrong. In his eyes, it was right. The Supreme Court also held that the evidence could support the conclusion that the accused’s mental state was so disordered that he was unable to rationally consider whether his act was right or wrong in the way a normal person would.
[116] In Oommen the Supreme Court made clear that s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code embraces not only the intellectual ability (or inability) to know right from wrong, but also “the capacity to apply that knowledge to the situation at hand”. See Oommen, at para. 35.
[117] I have no doubt that in this case both attacks were caused by Mr. Aninon’s active psychotic symptoms which flowed from his mental disorder. I find on June 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s paranoid delusions caused him to irrationally believe he was in danger from Mr. Cabelin. They caused him to perceive the wrongful act of stabbing Mr. Cabelin as right or justifiable. The disordered condition of Mr. Aninon’s mind deprived him of the ability to rationally evaluate what he was doing. He was unable, because of his delusions, to perceive his act of stabbing Mr. Cabelin as wrong in the circumstances.
[118] On July 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s auditory hallucinations caused him to stab Mr. Beare. Again, the disordered condition of his mind deprived him of the ability to rationally evaluate what he was doing. At the time of the offence on July 9, 2023, Mr. Aninon’s impulses were the product of his mental disorder and he was incapable of “bringing his mind to bear on what he was doing and the considerations which to normal people would make the act right or wrong”. See Oommen, at para. 29.
[119] I am satisfied that at the time of both offences Mr. Aninon was rendered incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or of knowing they were wrong. See Oommen, at paras. 26-29.
[120] As a result of my findings, I find that Mr. Aninon was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder with respect to both the attempt murder of June 9, 2023, and the assault with a weapon of July 9, 2023.
F. Remand to Review Board and Consequences to the Accused
[121] A finding of not criminally responsible does not mean that there are no consequences or restrictions on the liberty of an NCR accused. The consequences of an NCR finding can be profound. A person found NCR may be subject to state control for a longer period and under more stringent conditions than if sentenced for the offence in the ordinary course. The potential consequences include detention in a secure hospital setting involving serious deprivation of liberty, and the possibility of lifelong supervision. See R. v. Nahmabin, 2024 ONCA 534, at para. 4, citing R. v. Ivins, 2024 ONCA 408, at para. 7.
[122] Under sections 672.45 and 672.47 of the Criminal Code, following a finding of NCR, a judge can of its own motion, and shall at the request of the Crown or defence hold a disposition hearing. Where the parties have not requested the judge to hold a disposition hearing, the judge may hold a disposition hearing or remit the matter to the Review Board in which case the Review Board must hold a disposition hearing within 45 days and make a disposition.
[123] If the trial judge does not make a disposition, any detention order in place remains in force, unless varied by the court, until the Review Board makes a disposition.
[124] Under s. 672.47(3) of the Criminal Code, if a judge holds a disposition hearing and makes a disposition other than an absolute discharge, the Review Board is nonetheless required to hold a hearing and make a disposition within 90 days.
[125] In this case, because of the serious nature of the offences, an absolute discharge was not appropriate, and I agreed with the parties that the matter should be remitted to the Review Board.
[126] Where the Review Board holds a disposition hearing pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code they can impose an absolute discharge, a discharge with conditions, or order that the NCR accused be detained in a forensic hospital subject to such conditions as the Review Board considers appropriate.
[127] Pursuant to s. 672.81 of the Criminal Code, after the initial Review Board hearing the Review Board must hold an annual review of disposition hearing to review any disposition it has made in respect of an accused other than an absolute discharge.
[128] Under s. 672.5(5.1) and s. 672.5(14) of the Criminal Code, at the victim’s request, notice of a Review Board hearing shall be given to the victim and a victim may prepare and file a victim impact statement.
[129] Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code provides that in making a disposition the Review Board shall consider the safety of the public, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society, and the other needs of the accused. The section provides that safety of the public is the paramount consideration in determining a disposition.
[130] The Review Board imposes dispositions aimed at protecting the community from NCR accused who pose an ongoing risk to the community and at rehabilitating the accused. Dispositions must aim to treat the mentally ill offender while imposing the least liberty restriction compatible with public safety. Under the NCR regime, the goal is to reintegrate the mentally ill offender into the community provided it does not pose a significant risk to public safety.
[131] The state will continue to exercise jurisdiction, and place limitations on the liberty of the accused, including in some instances detaining the accused in a secure forensic hospital, as long as the accused remains a “significant threat to the safety of the public” having regard to the accused’s mental condition at the time of the hearing.
[132] Pursuant to s. 487.05(3) of the Criminal Code, an order was made requiring Mr. Aninon to provide a sample of his DNA.
Released August 16, 2024: Signed: Justice Marcella Henschel