Ontario Review Board
Re: Maxine Sylvie Giroux
ORB File No: 8112
Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 20, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. W. Sutton Dr. S. Lessard Ms. M. Labrosse Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Maxine Sylvie Giroux Counsel: Unrepresented
Amicus Curiae: Ms. K. Irwin
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel Dr. S. Strike
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DECISION & DISPOSITION
(Dated September 26, 2025)
Reasons for Decision and Disposition of the Majority
(Mr. P. Capelle, Ms. M. Labrosse, Dr. S. Lessard, Mr. A. Bouvier)
Introduction
On July 22, 2022, Maxine Giroux, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of criminal harassment (by repeated communications), threatening to cause bodily harm (x2), all contrary to of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Ms. Giroux is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 30, 2023, which detains her in the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including living in the City of Ottawa, Ontario in an approved home, approved by the person in charge.
By way of letter dated July 9, 2024, the hospital notified the ORB of a potential restriction of liberty as a result of Ms. Giroux being admitted to hospital on June 27, 2024.
This matter was previously adjourned on two occasions, firstly on October 15, 2024, at the request of the parties to seek a longer hearing for the hospital to prepare an addendum addressing the restriction of liberty, and the second time on February 10, 2025, due to Ms. Giroux’ non-attendance.
On August 20, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to the hospital, to review Ms. Giroux’s last disposition as well as the restriction of liberty. Ms. Giroux attended her hearing and was unrepresented. Ms. Kate Irwin acted as Amicus Curiae. Ms. Giroux’s CMHA worker also attended the hearing. A cumulative hospital report dated October 8, 2024, with updates for February 2025 and August 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1.
This hearing addressed two matters. The first, whether Ms. Giroux continues to pose a significant risk to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. For the reasons set out below the Board finds that Ms. Giroux no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly we grant her an absolute discharge.
The second, regarding the restriction of liberty which occurred when Ms. Giroux was admitted to hospital on June 27, 2024 under the auspices of her detention order and remained on the secure forensic unit of the hospital until July 15, 2025 when she was transferred to the Concurrent Disorders Unit of the hospital, the Board finds that hospital’s decision to readmit Ms. Giroux to hospital, thereby significantly increasing the restriction of her liberty, was not reasonable and warranted and did not represent the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital to manage the risk to public safety.
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are extracted from the hospital report as follows:
“Criminal Harassment (December 5, 2021, to April 28, 2022)
On December 4, 2020, Ms. Giroux received a 10-month conditional sentence order (CSO) and three years’ probation in respect of a conviction for criminal harassment of her estranged partner, Stephane Gauthier, the father of her son. Between December 5, 2021, and December 24th, 2021, Ms. Giroux sent 45 emails to Mr. Gauthier’s email address. In many of the emails, she described all the caring things she had done for their son, refers to herself as a good mother and paints Mr. Gauthier as far less of a father who is simply using Ms. Giroux to satisfy his sexual needs. In an email sent on December 6, 2021, at 2:22 p.m., Ms. Giroux wrote: “If I wanted to physically hurt you or kill you, I could have done it so fast, no one could have sorted it out, let alone stopped me until after I was done” [sic]. Later that day, at 11:15 p.m., she wrote: “Like, it doesn’t take much for anyone with a brain to realize what a fuckin jerk shit-tard you’ve been for pretending to be a victim of emails. you’re such a loser” [sic]. Ms. Giroux then sent a further 19 emails to Mr. Gauthier between February 14 and April 28, 2022.
Uttering a Threat to Cause Bodily Harm
In an email sent to Mr. Gauthier on April 28, 2022, at 12:29 a.m., she wrote: “I will personally chop your dick off if I have to. Which is to say, no more fkn around. Give my son back, we’re leaving town, never need ed you, and you stand in the way. you’ll come up short (chop chop). I don’t know who wrote this message, fkn mystery, it wasn’t me, but seriously” [sic]. Mr. Gauthier did not report these emails to the police until April 28th, 2022. He had his email setting so that any communication from Ms. Giroux fell into a separate inbox. Briefly, as her emails were received, the victim was able to see the subject line and the first portion of the content pop up, which would eventually disappear. Mr. Gauthier often chose to avoid reading the emails, as he found much of the content to be disturbing. However, when he read the email sent at 12:29 on April 28th, its contents gave him a concern for his safety such that he reported it to the police.
Background History
Ms. Giroux’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Ms. Giroux is 42 years of age and was born and raised in Ottawa and has lived there for most of her life. Her mother was also from Ottawa. She had no relationship with her biological father, stating that her mother lived with another man, Anthony Curro, who raised her from the time that Ms. Giroux was six months old. Ms. Giroux reported that her mother, Manon, has schizophrenia and was treated at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre and that her mother’s illness caused “lots of dysfunction in the home”.
Ms. Giroux reported that she entered Carleton University in Ottawa directly after graduating from high school and completed both Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Sociology.
Ms. Giroux’s employment history is described briefly in the Hospital Report, which notes that she did contract work for Statistics Canada and the Department of National Defence. She had not worked since 2013 or 2014. She declared bankruptcy in 2012 prior to entering residential rehabilitation for alcohol use for the first time. She has been on ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) since 2014. When she first applied for support, her diagnoses
were depression and alcohol use disorder. This was amended several years later to include premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and “untreated adrenal fatigue.”
Legal History
- Ms. Giroux had been convicted of repeated instances of criminal harassment and breach of conditions since 2018. She acknowledged that all of these occurrences were related to her former partner Stephane and were essentially similar in nature to the index offences. She received a 10-month conditional sentence order in 2020. Ms. Giroux was also convicted of an assault charge for an incident occurring in 2022.
Psychiatric History
Ms. Giroux reported having severe episodes of premenstrual dysphoria for several years when she was not taking birth control. She described these as “rage and suicidal thoughts, I would go berserk”. She said that she would never act on these suicidal thoughts because of her son. Her alcohol use over the past several years has masked these symptoms. They will often lead her to “a self-will relapse”, as opposed to one permitted by God.
Ms. Giroux has taken a variety of supplements over the years in order to address these PMDD symptoms. She found a combination of magnesium, B50, Vitamin D3, Omega 3 fatty acids and Vitex herb (Chasteberry) extract to be most helpful in the week before her period.
Ms. Giroux reported that she had an episode of dissociative identity disorder (DID) that lasted for 8 months in 2017. This apparently began after she received Baclofen, a muscle relaxant. She began drinking more than one liter of wine and would have “three alters (distinct personalities)”. This resolved when she “accepted some things like prophets online repeating things that I said, prayed or sang about”. She said that her alters were “the Messiah, the angry mother and the watcher”. This led her to the “obvious conclusion that I’m the Lord”.
Ms. Giroux’s current diagnoses are:
- Delusional disorder
- Post-traumatic stress disorder
- Premenstrual dysphoric disorder
- Alcohol use disorder, severity unclear
- Cannabis use disorder, status and severity unclear
- Cocaine use disorder, Severe, in early remission
- Borderline personality disorder
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Melanie Strike, Ms. Giroux’ attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.
Ms. Giroux’s annual hearing was rescheduled several times during the past year, and her last disposition is dated October 30, 2023. Dr. Strike indicated that she has opined for some time now that Ms. Giroux no longer presents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that Ms. Giroux has been aware of that.
Ms. Giroux has not had any admissions to hospital over the past year. She was living in a subsidized Ottawa Community housing apartment with which she was quite dissatisfied given the presence of drug dealers who were attending at her unit to offer her drugs, and which made her feel very unsafe. While continuing to work with the members of her treatment team, including her CMHA worker, Lisa Fitzpatrick and her forensic social worker Krystle Myllymaki, Ms. Giroux made several applications for alternative housing and due to long wait lists she was not successful in finding other accommodation.
Ms. Giroux attended various residential addictions programs in the last year and struggled to remain in those programs and maintain her sobriety. She relapsed repeatedly with crack cocaine and alcohol use while expressing consistent goals of wanting to stop using drugs completely, and to continue using alcohol moderately. According to Dr. Strike, Ms. Giroux has been very forthcoming in reporting her substance use though she did not comply with requests to provide urine drug screens. The last urine drug screen was provided in May of 2024, while she was an inpatient at the Substance Use and Concurrent Disorders Program of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.
Ms. Giroux eventually gave up her apartment in the spring of 2025 when she was accepted into a one-year residential addiction program called “New Life” located near Belleville, Ontario. Ms. Giroux lasted three months in that program and then left to return to Ottawa and move into temporary housing. The reasons given for leaving that program include the fact that Ms. Giroux takes medication to assist her with sleep, which is highly discouraged within that program. In addition, though this was a faith-based program, it did not coincide with Ms. Giroux’s own interpretation of the Bible and religion. Finally, Ms. Giroux also stated that she left the New Life Residential Treatment Centre as physical work was as a major component of that program and that due to her knee issues, this was very difficult for her.
According to Dr. Strike, Ms. Giroux wants to live in the community and maintain her sobriety, but this has been very difficult given the lack of appropriate housing. Ms. Giroux is currently residing at the Maison Gilles Chagnon (MGC), a women’s residential stabilization program, where she has been for the last three weeks and can remain for a period of up to three months. From there Ms. Giroux plans to make applications for
second stage housing and anywhere else she can possibly apply for housing, once she leaves MGC.
Dr. Strike has maintained Ms. Giroux’ diagnosis of delusional disorder though she has been stable in the community for the last 18 months without using medication. Ms. Giroux had been on a low dose of antipsychotic medication which was titrated starting in November 2023 and discontinued in June of 2024 though the last therapeutic dose was on or about January of 2024. Ms. Giroux remains adamant that she does not wish to take antipsychotic treatment and given her ability to remain stable in the community despite undergoing a variety of other stressors and substance relapses, Dr. Strike has concluded that Ms. Giroux can continue to be managed safely without antipsychotic medication.
With respect to the admission to hospital on June 27, 2024, and the restriction of liberty hearing before the Board today with respect to that admission, Dr. Strike indicates that at the time Ms. Giroux was not medicated and was using substances heavily. She had contacted the treatment team members to say that she felt that she might contact the victim of the index offences, Mr. Gauthier. At the time, she was on the wait list for addictions’ treatment and a bed opened up in the forensic program to bring her in so that she could be then transferred to the Substance Use and Concurrent Disorders program (SUCD). Dr. Strike testified that though the Form 49 was used to bring her in, she became a voluntary patient as of July 15, 2024, when she was transferred to the SUDC unit of the hospital.
In retrospect, Dr. Strike believes that the admission was not necessary to manage risk to public safety. Beyond having stated that she was thinking of emailing Mr. Gauthier, there was no evidence that Ms. Giroux was engaging in any other form of offending behaviour, nor that she posed a risk of physical or psychological harm to any other person. Dr. Strike believes that the decision to admit Ms. Giroux was appropriate to manage the risk that she posed to herself and to further her treatment goals, but that was not necessary to manage her risk to public safety.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) Regarding the admission to hospital, Dr. Strike stated that her opinion changed as a result of further observation but also because the decision to admit her was made with the members of the treatment team who advocated for her to get this one-shot opportunity to get into the SUCD Program.
(b) Ms. Giroux has put in great effort to deal with her addictions. She has attended multiple addiction programs and continues to work on this in a meaningful way.
(c) There will likely be further difficulties in securing housing, but it is expected that she will continue engaging with CMHA, her Amethyst House addiction counsellor and her supportive family doctor. Dr. Strike has offered to continue to see Ms. Giroux and believes that they have a good therapeutic rapport though they do not necessarily agree on everything, particularly with respect to her diagnosis. They are able focus on working together and on improving Ms. Giroux’s functioning in the community.
(d) Ms. Giroux is very motivated to renew contact with her son, and on securing appropriate housing and employment. Dr. Strike believes that the members of her treatment team will continue to be involved in assisting her in reaching those goals.
(e) In the event that Ms. Giroux was to decompensate, she does have some good professional and personal supports in her life and that she has quite good insight into when she is not functioning well.
(f) Dr. Strike believes that there are many variables when one looks at possible pathways to further aggression. It is difficult to predict what might happen in the long term as it is likely that Ms. Giroux will continue to remain off antipsychotic medication, that she may have some relapses into substances and continued difficulty with securing proper housing.
(g) Overall, Dr. Strike believes that though there are ongoing risk factors in Ms. Giroux’s life, there is a low risk of further criminal offending that would cause significant physical or psychological harm to others.
- In response to questions posed to her by Ms. Giroux and Amicus Curiae for the hearing, Ms. Irwin, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Strike stated that the communication between Ms. Giroux and the treatment team has been excellent over the course of the past year. Ms. Giroux is very responsible with her own care. She manages her own medication refills for the non-antipsychotic medication that she takes to treat her issues with sleep and anxiety. She attends all her appointments, is usually early and has kept her treatment team well informed of her treatment programs and her relapses into substance use. Ms. Giroux has not needed a forensic case manager for some time and is managing well independently.
(b) Dr. Strike was asked why Ms. Giroux was refused admission to the hospital when she asked to be admitted in relation to the issues that she was having while living at 2651 Regina Street and was desperate to get out of there. Dr. Strike responded that it was likely a bed availability issue and that it was not possible to provide a forensic bed for someone that wanted to come in for housing reasons and who was psychiatrically stable.
(c) With respect to seeking eventual contact with her son, Dr. Strike acknowledged that he will soon be 16 years of age and that this is a different situation than if he was a younger child. Ms. Giroux has also demonstrated insight into the fact that it would be better for her to go through other channels, including seeking the assistance of a family law lawyer to avoid having further issues with Mr. Gauthier. She has also identified her need for stable and appropriate housing as something that would be needed for her to have meaningful contact with her son.
(d) Dr. Strike acknowledged that Ms. Giroux has developed good sight into the need not to engage in contacting Mr. Gauthier even though the elements that were present at the time of the index offences, such as homelessness and addiction, are still present to some extent.
(e) Dr. Strike acknowledged that Ms. Giroux has a new CMHA worker after having the same worker for some time, but she expects that she will be able to develop a positive therapeutic relationship with that person. Despite her childhood trauma, Ms. Giroux has demonstrated an ability to develop trust relationships.
- With respect to questions posed to her by members of the panel, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Strike confirmed that the last therapeutic dose of antipsychotic medication was in January of 2024. She considers Ms. Giroux capable of consenting to treatment. It is Ms. Giroux’s choice not to take treatment, and though this does not align with her recommendations, Dr. Strike’s is choosing to respect Ms. Giroux’s choice not to take treatment at this time.
(b) Ms. Giroux wanted to stop antipsychotic medication as she did not like the way it made her feel and stated that it interfered with her connection with God.
(c) Dr. Strike acknowledged that she had previously assessed Ms. Giroux as being incapable of consenting to treatment and acknowledges that she had some difficulty with that assessment. Though Ms. Giroux denies having a psychotic illness, she does acknowledge that she has “funny ideas”. She also understands the impact of medication on those symptoms.
(d) Dr. Strike acknowledged that the decision to admit Ms. Giroux to hospital last year, after she was threatening contact with Mr. Gauthier, might have avoided further offending.
(e) Dr. Strike sees Ms. Giroux every two months and that frequency would continue if she is granted an absolute discharge.
(f) When Ms. Giroux can no longer stay at MGC, she may go to an emergency shelter or some other form of second stage housing if she can secure it.
(g) With respect to the issue of significant threat, it is Dr. Strike’s opinion that the threshold is not met. Ms. Giroux has been off medication for the last 18 months and has not reoffended, and though risk factors remain present, the nature of the offending was threatening emails to one particular person. Dr. Strike is of the view that there is a low risk of reoccurring offending behaviour.
(h) Dr. Strike acknowledged that there was one other incident of violence which occurred in 2022 when Ms. Giroux was in a grocery store and was grabbed by an employee as she refused to put on a COVID mask. She responded by assaulting that person.
(i) Dr. Strike believes that Ms. Giroux has ongoing psychotic symptoms in the form of over-valued religious beliefs and that this could likely be treated with antipsychotic medication.
(j) Ms. Giroux has navigated some horrendous stressors in the past year and has not decompensated.
(k) In view of the delays caused by the several adjournments of this hearing, Dr. Strike believes that the passage of time has added to the risk assessment and that further demonstrates that the risk is manageable without a disposition. Dr. Strike also noted that Ms. Giroux’s three-year probation order ended on June 24, 2025, and that she has not reoffended.
- In response to questions arising by Amicus, Ms. Irwin, Dr. Strike acknowledged that she does not know whether Mr. Gauthier has changed his email address in the 3½ years since the last email contact.
Other Evidence – Sylvie Giroux
When asked about her views towards the victim of the index offences, Stéphane Gauthier, Ms. Giroux responded that she is concerned that he might be under economic pressure but that her greater concern is her son’s welfare and the abuse that he has suffered. She indicated that she prays for Mr. Gauthier.
Ms. Giroux stated that she would like to avoid family court as she has been there before, and it was very difficult on everyone including her son. She and her treatment team are discussing the best approach to request contact with her son. She would rather not deal with Mr. Gauthier if she does not have to, and she may decide to retain a lawyer.
In any event, Ms. Giroux is intent on not jeopardizing her own stability. She is currently working with the John Howard Society involved in pre-employee activities and healthy habits activities. She is also connected with Elizbeth Fry and the YMCA with whom she has made housing applications. She stated that she does not wish conflict with her son’s father or make things worse for her son. If she is granted an absolute discharge and no longer required to refrain from contacting him, Ms. Giroux has thought about sending a respectful child-focussed email to Mr. Gauthier in order to broach the issue of having contact with her son.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, Ms. Giroux stated that she does not think that Mr. Gauthier wants to hear from her but then also suggested that maybe he does want to hear from her so that he can have the pleasure of ignoring her email and not responding. Ms. Giroux added that after previously being told to change his address by police, Mr. Gauthier chose not to change his address.
In response to questions posed to her by members of the panel, Ms. Giroux could not confirm the charges to which her last probation order was related. After some time, counsel for the Attorney General and Ms. Irwin were able to confirm that the probation order was in relation to several charges, including a fail to comply with release order, cause disturbance, criminal harassment for different periods of time, all of which resulted in a ten-month conditional sentence and three years probation. There was a conditional sentence breach which extended the probation order to June 24, 2025. It was also confirmed that the assault in the grocery store resulted in 12 months probation which has long since expired.
The hospital’s risk assessment is set out at pages 50 and 51 of the hospital report and is summarized below:
“In assessing Ms. Giroux’s risk of future violence, I have used the HCR-20, version 3, which is a structured clinical judgment instrument. After conducting this assessment and considering the level of violence of her previous aggressive behaviours and other established violence risk factors from the medical literature, I opine that Ms. Giroux presents a LOW risk of future violence, meaning any aggressive or other criminal behaviours that she exhibited in the past, including verbal aggression and written threats to cause physical harm.
Ms. Giroux’s most likely re-offence scenario is communicating threats to cause death or serious harm by email, text messaging or other electronic communication while under the influence of substances. She is more likely to engage in this type of aggression when off antipsychotic medication and experiencing delusional thinking. The potential severity of future aggression is relatively low.
Ms. Giroux’s specific risk factors have not changed in the past year. It has now been 3.5 years since she has engaged in behaviour of a criminal nature that presented a real risk of harm to members of the public, beyond trivial or annoying actions. This is despite the absence of antipsychotic medication, episodic substance use, and severe psychosocial stressors in the context of complex trauma that she experienced throughout childhood and as an adult. Her long-acting antipsychotic medication was tapered starting in early November 2023 and she has not been treated with antipsychotic medication since mid-June 2024.
Her probation order ended on June 25, 2025. She has not made attempts to contact Stephane, the victim of the index offences, since they occurred.
In my opinion, Ms. Giroux continues to present some risk of engaging in inappropriate and unwanted electronic communication when using substances. It remains my opinion that her risk no longer rises to a level that is beyond trivial or annoying, on the balance of probabilities.”
- No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
The hospital submits that Ms. Giroux no longer poses a significant risk to the safety of the public and should be granted an absolute discharge. Regarding the restriction of liberty, the hospital now takes the position that it was not necessary and appropriate as it was not needed to manage public safety.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright submitted that the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is still met. Though it is acknowledged that Ms. Giroux has made progress, she remains untreated, has poor insight into the need for treatment and has continued to relapse into substance use over the past 2 years. Ms. Giroux also has housing instability which could lead to further deterioration of her situation. Ms. Giroux has also made it clear that she plans on contacting the victim of the index offences once she is no longer prohibited from doing so, and that this situation could easily lead to further conflict.
Ms. Irwin, acting as Amicus Curiae for this hearing, indicated that Ms. Giroux is seeking an absolute discharge. Her plans to contact Mr. Gauthier to initiate contact with her son are vastly different than the index offences, which involved her sending Mr. Gauthier 45 emails in a 19-day period, containing some explicit language and threats. Ms. Irwin further submits that Ms. Giroux has weathered the storm, that she has been off medication for 18 months, has not reoffended and has maintained her overall stability despite her housing instability and relapses into substance use. The risk no longer meets the threshold of significant threat, and she should therefore be granted an absolute discharge.
Ms. Giroux added that at the time of the index offences, she was being sex-trafficked and was suffering from Complex PTSD. The only contact that she is contemplating is what is absolutely necessary to initiate contact with her son.
Analysis and Disposition
- With respect to the annual hearing, having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the majority of the Board finds that Ms. Giroux no longer meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public as
defined in s 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Despite her complex psychiatric diagnoses, Ms. Giroux has remained psychiatrically stable in the community and has been off medication for 18 months. Though she has ongoing issues with substances and housing instability, Ms. Giroux has developed a positive rapport with members of her treatment team and has not reoffended in several years. She has not exhibited any threatening, aggressive, or violent conduct since being off anti-psychotic medication.
Ms. Giroux has clearly expressed an intention to contact the victim of the index offences, Mr. Gauthier, either directly or indirectly, to initiate some form of contact with her son. Though it is understandable that Ms. Gauthier would want to re-initiate contact with her son, it is noted that she continues to believe that her son was abused by Mr. Gauthier. It may be preferable for Ms. Gauthier to go through formal channels to initiate parental contact with her son. Ms. Gauthier appears to have an appreciation that any contact will need to be child-focused and business-like, to avoid having further issues with Mr. Gauthier.
Though there remain active risk factors, we agree with the hospital’s submission that Ms. Giroux’ overall stability without medication and her high level of engagement with her professional supports, with or without an ORB disposition, are important protective factors.
If Ms. Giroux was to experience a decompensation of her mental condition, she would most highly likely reach out to her psychiatric, medical and psychosocial supports for assistance as she has insight into when she is not doing well. We cannot find that there is sufficient likelihood that she would reengage in behaviour that would cause serious psychological or physical harm to others, keeping in mind that the nature of the index offences was that of sending harassing and threatening emails to one particular individual with whom she had a highly conflictual relationship.
In reaching this conclusion, the majority of the panel considered the factors enunciated at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the paramount safety of the public, as well as Ms. Giroux’s needs, mental condition, and rehabilitation into society.
Finally, regarding the restriction of liberty, given the hospital’s own submission that the decision to readmit Ms. Giroux to hospital was not reasonable and warranted as it was not necessary to manage public safety, but rather to provide opportunity for Ms. Giroux to obtain a bed in the Substance Use and Concurrent Disorders Group of the hospital, we find that the admission was not least the least onerous and least restrictive decision in the circumstances.
Reasons for Decision and Disposition of the Minority
(Dr. W. Sutton)
It is the respectful opinion of the minority that Ms. Giroux continues to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public, and thus, should continue to be subject to a disposition under the Ontario Review Board. Ms. Giroux was found NCR in 2022 on a charge of criminal harassment consisting of repeated unwanted communications with the victim, her ex-husband. She was also charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm towards her ex-husband. Prior to the finding of NCR, Ms. Giroux had received a 10-month conditional sentence and three year’s probation for criminal harassment against her ex-husband. Of note, her probationary period ended in June of 2025. Ms. Giroux was also convicted of assault in July of 2022.
Ms. Giroux’s last hearing before the Ontario Review Board took place on October 13, 2023. At that time, her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Strike, highlighted Ms. Giroux’s lack of insight into her mental illness, while noting that she had refused to start antipsychotic treatment in the community. This had resulted in a deterioration in her mental status leading to verbal aggression and threats of violence towards a neighbour and her ODSP worker. Her agitation at the time was characterized as “psychosis-driven”. Ms. Giroux was hospitalized on the basis of a Form 49 due to her deteriorating mental status. She was started on an injectable antipsychotic medication, with subsequent improvement noted as she “became less preoccupied with delusional beliefs… she began demonstrating insight into her problematic use of alcohol and other substances and began engaging well with her inpatient social worker”. The risk assessment presented at the hearing in 2023 indicated that Ms. Giroux was a moderate risk of violence, and the most likely reoffence scenario consisted of her resuming her harassment and threats towards her ex-husband. Risk factors identified as concerning at the time included problems with insight, symptoms of her major mental illness (which at the time were improving with treatment), instability of behaviour, and problems with treatment or supervision response. Contained in the Board’s analysis section of the Reasons for Disposition, it was highlighted that Ms. Giroux had returned to electronic communication with the treatment team, focusing on the victim of the index offence and their child.
Throughout 2024, Ms. Giroux crafted numerous emails to Dr. Strike demonstrating her lack of insight into her mental illness, and indifference with adhering to her disposition. In the summer of 2024, the decision was made to discontinue Ms. Giroux’s antipsychotic medication. It was noted that a few weeks after discontinuing this treatment, she increased her alcohol intake and was more religiously preoccupied. Of particular significance, it was noted that Ms. Giroux had continued to send numerous messages to staff, some of which included threatening statements towards her ex-husband. Dr. Strike opined at the time that she was incapable with respect to decisions regarding antipsychotic treatment. Despite this, Ms. Giroux remained unmedicated, and symptoms of psychosis continued to be evident.
By way of update for the August 2025 hearing, Dr. Strike indicated that psychiatric follow up had been infrequent over the past year. It was apparent that Ms. Giroux continued to exhibit symptoms of psychosis, as she was described as “religiously preoccupied during most encounters, often with consistent overvalued beliefs that reached delusional intensity at various points”. In July of 2025, Ms. Giroux was sending “lengthy email messages” during periods of intoxication, in which she reported concerns that her son was being abused by his father. Ms. Giroux’s psychiatrist also detailed her precarious housing situation, as Ms. Giroux gave up her previous housing in June of 2025.
In the most recent risk assessment from October 2024, Dr. Strike opined that Ms. Giroux represented a low risk of future violence. She reported no change in specific risk factors over the past year. Dr. Strike acknowledged the most likely re-offence scenario involved Ms. Giroux resuming harassment and threatening communication with her ex-partner. Dr. Strike further opined this behaviour was more likely when she was off antipsychotic medication, and experiencing delusional thinking.
During the August of 2025, hearing Ms. Giroux testified with the assistance of Amicus. When asked by Crown counsel whether she intended to contact the victim of the index offence, she suggested that she would do so if she was not able to connect with her son through alternative communication pathways, for instance, with the assistance of the treatment team.
In essence, it is my respectful opinion that the evidence presented at the hearing does not indicate a low risk of violence. On the contrary, Dr. Strike herself acknowledged that a re-offence scenario similar to the index offence was more likely in the context of Ms. Giroux not adhering to antipsychotic treatment and experiencing an amplification of her delusional beliefs. In fact, both of these risk factors (off antipsychotic treatment, delusional beliefs) were present at the time of the hearing, in addition to active substance use, lack of insight into her mental illness, precarious housing situation, recent concerning behaviour regarding threats towards the victim, and voiced intention to contact the victim. Ms. Giroux’s constellation of risk factors as identified at the time of the hearing in August of 2025 would qualify her for at minimum, a moderate risk as opined in the risk analysis in 2023, if not higher. It is important to highlight the fact the previous opinion of moderate risk offered by Dr. Strike in 2023 was in the context of Ms. Giroux adhering to antipsychotic medication and responding favourably to this treatment. Her current non-adherence to antipsychotic treatment, and identified active symptoms of psychosis, would presumably increase her risk of violence.
The minority concludes that Ms. Giroux continues to represent a significant risk of the safety of the public, and she continues to require ongoing oversight and supervision of the Review Board in order to guide strategies required to manage her ongoing risk to others.
DATED this 26th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Legal Member
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board