Ontario Review Board
Re: Robert Kirkpatrick
ORB File No: 7671
Hearing held on: Tuesday, August 19, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of 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: Robert Kirkpatrick Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. F. Wood
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DECISION & DISPOSITION
(Dated September 24, 2025)
Introduction
On December 20, 2019, the accused, Robert Kirkpatrick, was found not criminally responsible on charges of break and enter and commit, mischief, uttering threats, assault peace or public officer, and obstruct/resist a public/peace officer, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Kirkpatrick is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 14, 2024, which discharges him on certain terms and conditions.
By way of a letter dated July 15, 2025, the hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that Mr. Kirkpatrick had been admitted to the Crisis Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre from the Montfort Hospital, thereby resulting in the loss of privileges. The hospital further informed that there had been a breakdown of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s current residence and that his current Disposition, a conditional discharge, specifies the address of the residence where he no longer resides.
On August 19, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review the hospital’s decision to readmit Mr. Kirkpatrick to its facility on the Crisis Unit on May 20, 2025. Mr. Kirkpatrick attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Marni Munsterman. Mr. Kirkpatrick’s mother and sister, as well as his friend and former girlfriend, Melissa Cheechoo also attended the hearing. An updated hospital report dated August 12, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing.
The main issues for this hearing were whether the significant increase in the restriction of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s liberty by admission to hospital was reasonable and warranted in the circumstances and whether it continues to be.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the hospital decision to readmit Mr. Kirkpatrick to hospital on May 25, 2025, did constitute a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty and that it was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital to manage the risk. Mr. Kirkpatrick was experiencing a mental health decompensation and could no longer be managed as an inpatient at the Montfort Hospital.
The hospital also requested a change to the residence specification of the current disposition, which the Board granted and will address in greater detail in the Analysis and Conclusion part of these Reasons.
As the only issue before the Board is the restriction of liberty there is no need to recount the circumstances of the index offences, nor is it necessary to reproduce the background history, both of which are addressed in detail in the Reasons for Disposition dated July 5, 2024. Kirkpatrick’s next annual review hearing is scheduled for October 21st, 2025, at 10:30 a.m.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report dated August 12, 2025, and through the oral testimony of Dr. F. Wood, Mr. Kirkpatrick’s current attending psychiatrist, having assumed Mr. Kirkpatrick’s care from Dr. Selaman on October 10, 2024.
As set out in the hospital report, prior to the most recent May 25, 2025 admission, Mr. Kirkpatrick had two other admissions to hospital during the reporting year, from November 2 to 19, 2024, and again, from December 12 to January 16, 2025. Both admissions sought to address an increase in symptoms by stabilizing Mr. Kirkpatrick and optimizing his medication.
Mr. Kirkpatrick was seen by Dr. Sandhu of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre urgently on March 21, 2025, in response to concerns from Mr. Kirkpatrick’s family and from the group home staff that he had started consuming cannabis gummies. Mr. Kirkpatrick confirmed that he was using gummies; however there did not appear to be any major concerns regarding his mental stability at that time. Further to additional reports from Mr. Kirkpatrick’s mother, the hospital was informed that Mr. Kirkpatrick was appearing more dysregulated and irritable. His girlfriend, Ms. Cheechoo, reported that she found a stash of gummies in his satchel, which he initially claimed were CBD gummies but were in fact primarily THC gummies. Further to a decompensation of his mental condition and the risk of him losing his housing, Dr. Sandhu filled out a Mental Health Act Form 1 (Box “B” criteria) and Mr. Kirkpatrick was admitted to the Montfort Hospital on April 3, 2025, where he remained until his transfer to the Crisis Unit of the Royal Ottawa on May 20, 2025.
The hospital was informed on April 29, 2025, that Mr. Kirkpatrick was discharged from his bed at the Duford residence, due to the prolonged admission to hospital and despite advocacy by his treatment team.
Several weeks after his admission to the Montfort hospital, Mr. Kirkpatrick’s condition seemed to deteriorate and he was repeatedly observed laughing to himself, being irritable and having episodes of agitation and yelling and hitting windows. He was more disorganized, and his hygiene and self-care were declining. He appeared to stabilize between May 5th and May 14th but there was another period of agitation on May 15th resulting in the Montfort Hospital stating that they could no longer manage Mr. Kirkpatrick. He was transferred to the Crisis Unit of the ROMHC on May 20, 2025.
Dr. Wood testified that Mr. Kirkpatrick is very sensitive to his medications and that his mental condition can fluctuate significantly, making him susceptible to behavioural dysregulation, disorganization and occasionally aggression. His behaviour at the Montfort Hospital required him to be transferred to the Crisis Unit of the Royal Ottawa Hospital where he has since been housed as a “voluntary patient”.
Mr. Kirkpatrick has a very strong support system between his mother, his sister who resides in Ireland and his former partner, Ms. Cheechoo, all of whom are involved in his care. Ms. Cheechoo is viewed as a strong support for Mr. Kirkpatrick. She brings him to his NA meetings at the hospital and otherwise supports him. She has a good understanding of his illness and is able to recognize early and subtle signs of decompensation.
Dr. Wood explained that a referral has been made to the Schizophrenia Recovery Program at the Royal Ottawa where Mr. Kirkpatrick was assessed for suitability. The initial results are that Mr. Kirkpatrick is not a candidate for the program as he indicated that this program is simply a transitional place for him to stay, and he did not seem interested in the groups and programming. Dr. Wood believes that Kirkpatrick’s cognitive deficits make it challenging to interview him and he likely would have benefitted from further supports during that interview. According to Dr. Wood, there will be further discussions to explore having Mr. Kirkpatrick better supported to become a suitable candidate for that program.
Dr. Wood expects that there will also be efforts made to support Mr. Kirkpatrick in finding employment, as it has been deemed a protective factor for him to be involved in meaningful structured activities which keep him stable and occupied.
In the opinion of Dr. Wood, a robust discharge plan is needed in order to assist Mr. Kirkpatrick in successfully re-transitioning to the community.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Munsterman, Dr. Wood stated that, in addition to supporting Mr. Kirkpatrick with respect to leisure, recreation, and other employment pursuits, the hospital wants him to engage in counselling for his addictions and as well to ensure medication optimization, given the sensitivities to medication and his fluctuating Lithium levels. In addition, there will be the ongoing conversations with the Schizophrenia Recovery Program of the hospital to see if that could eventually be an option for Mr. Kirkpatrick.
With respect to Ms. Cheechoo, though there was the breach of trust between she and Mr. Kirkpatrick in relation to his gummies use. Dr. Wood believes that that trust has been restored and that Ms. Cheechoo’s home remains the best option for discharge to the community. She is willing to have Mr. Kirkpatrick reside with her. Dr. Wood wants to ensure that there is not too much responsibility placed on her, and therefore, a robust discharge plan and supervision are needed to ensure that his discharge to the community is successful.
Dr. Wood confirmed that Mr. Kirkpatrick has good insight into his major mental illness and the need for medication, and that he appreciates the benefits of the medication that he is taking. His Lithium levels can fluctuate quite frequently and are often related to issues such as hydration and his caffeine intake. Dr. Wood stated that there has been a slight increase in his Clozapine dose to protect against those fluctuations.
With respect to the most recent admission to hospital, Mr. Kirkpatrick understands that his cannabis use led to that readmission and he has indicated a willingness to attend addictions counselling.
In response to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Wood stated that he had debated whether or not to leave out the request for the residence specification from the disposition. Dr. Wood believes that Mr. Kirkpatrick is likely to follow the recommendations of the treatment team and has not previously shown any resistance with respect to recommendations for community accommodations.
Dr. Wood acknowledged that Mr. Kirkpatrick had no admissions in the previous reporting year to this one but that since his NCR finding in 2019, he has required several readmissions to hospital due to the decompensation of his mental condition.
In response to questions arising by counsel for Mr. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Munsterman, Dr. Wood acknowledged that the residence specification may not be necessary and that it may be preferable to simply remove the residence condition from the disposition.
No further evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
The hospital submits that the decision to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s liberty was necessary and appropriate and continues to be. Dr. Wood stated that following the information discussed in this hearing, he has concluded that a residence specification is not needed as part of the disposition given that Mr. Kirkpatrick has proved to be cooperative in that regard since being under the Board.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, indicated that he agreed with the hospital that the restriction of liberty was and remains necessary and appropriate. He added that it could nevertheless be appropriate to maintain an address specification in the disposition as if things do not go well in the future, that could become necessary.
Counsel for Mr. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Munsterman, stated that Mr. Kirkpatrick was not opposing the restriction of liberty and that he agrees that it continues to be necessary as the hospital is working on a discharge plan. He understands that the admission to hospital became necessary because of the loss of his residence. Ms. Munsterman takes the position that the Board should remove the address specification in the disposition.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that the hospital’s decision to admit Mr. Kirkpatrick to the Crisis Unit of the hospital on May 20, 2025, amounts to a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty, that it was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital at that time.
Regarding the law applicable to restriction of liberty hearings, the analytical framework established by (Re) Campbell, 2018 ONCA 140, requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach – one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” ((Re) Campbell, para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” ((Re) Campbell, para 65).
Mr. Kirkpatrick is currently subject to a conditional discharge and had been residing in the community in a group home, from which he has since been discharged because of his admission to hospital. It is clear that the admission to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, albeit to the Crisis Unit, represented a significant change to Mr. Kirkpatrick’s previously enjoyed liberty norm.
The hospital submission presented to this Panel is appropriate on the evidence on each of the issues set out for consideration in Campbell. The necessity of the restriction arose from the decompensation of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s mental condition and the Montfort Hospital’s decision that he could no longer be managed there. There was, accordingly, a significant restriction of his liberty that was undertaken out of necessity, having regard to both the hospital’s obligation to ensure the safety of the public (as the primary objective) and its duty to ensure that Mr. Kirkpatrick’s mental health and other needs are being met. Additionally, Mr. Kirkpatrick had required 2 previous admissions to hospital in the past reporting year, due to increased symptoms and the need to stabilize him and optimize his medications.
The restriction of Mr. Kirkpatrick’s liberty was and remains the least onerous and least restrictive course available to the hospital. The evidence persuades us that the hospital is working on a robust discharge plan, and that in the meantime, Mr. Kirkpatrick is being granted privileges. The hospital appears to be doing what it can to restore Mr. Kirkpatrick’s previously enjoyed liberty norm, including allowing 48 hour passes to the home of Ms. Cheechoo and other related privileges.
Taken as a whole, the hospital report and Dr. Wood’s testimony clearly established that the hospital is aware of the principles of minimal intrusion on Mr. Kirkpatrick’s liberty and is appropriately assessing and responding to his progress, as well as working on a discharge plan.
With respect to the residence specification currently contained in the disposition, we find that it should be removed from the disposition, as it is no longer necessary and appropriate, given the discharge plan and the fact that Mr. Kirkpatrick has been cooperative with the hospital regarding his community accommodations.
The Board is hopeful that Mr. Kirkpatrick will continue the forward progress he has made in the past few months, and we wish him the best.
DATED this 24th 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