Ontario Review Board
Re: Joshua Simser
ORB File No: 8563
Hearing held on: Monday, August 18, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(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: Joshua Simser
Counsel: Mr. D. Howard
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. S. Gulati
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 24, 2025)
Introduction
On May 17, 2024, the accused, Joshua Simser was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of threat to cause bodily injury or death (x3) contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Simser is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 27, 2024, which detains him at the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On August 18, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review Mr. Simser’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Simser was present at his hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. Daniel Howard. Also in attendance was Ms. Heather Bruce from Salus and Mr. Simser’s Forensic Case Manager, Ms. Christina Stromberg. A hospital report dated August 3, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
The issues to be determined by the Board are whether Mr. Simser continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Simser continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public which can now be managed with a conditional discharge, the details of which shall be set out in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these reasons.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are set out in the hospital report and summarized as follows:
“Fail to Comply with Probation Order
According to the Crown Brief Synopsis, on this date, Mr. Simser left a voicemail on the OPS phone line sometime overnight (2023/09/05-2023/09/06) detailing his frustrations that police will not investigate his children being kidnapped. It was noted that the allegations were investigated, and it was found that CAS lawfully removed the children and put them in a place of safety. In the voicemail. Mr. Simser stated he was “about ready to kill them”, making reference to several OPP officers by name. He also listed off some names that are presumed to be family/in-laws. He has expressed some delusional ideas to include named officers’ involvement in sexually abusing his children. He detailed beliefs regarding police tracking suspects with electronic devices and that he was subsequently disconnecting his phone and going offline.
On September 7, 2023, Mr. Simser was located and detained. He was subsequently arrested for uttering threats to cause death x 3 contrary to section 264.1(1)(a) of the criminal code.
On September 8, 2023, the patient was advised that he was being re-arrested for failing to comply with his probation order (S. 733.1(1) CC)”.
Background History
The details of Mr. Simser’s personal, legal and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Simser is 34 years of age, single and unemployed. He previously worked as a mason but prior to his arrest, was supported by Ontario Works and was staying at the Ottawa Mission shelter. He reports himself to be of indigenous heritage but does not have official status.
Mr. Simser’s parents separated when he was 18. For a time, the father and son had a poor relationship. They did reconnect shortly after the parents’ separation and would see each other on weekends. However, at a later point, the father left without telling anyone so that there is not much of a relationship left for Mr. Simser with his father.
Medical records note that a referral was made due to Mr. Simser’s behavioural issues. Mr. Simser was described as belligerent with peers, regularly inviting and initiating fights and often being oppositional toward his parents. A previous diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was confirmed. Prescribed medication (Ritalin) offered limited benefits. He was started on a low-dose antipsychotic (Risperidone). This seemed to help Mr. Simser with him becoming less aggressive and confrontational in school.
Mr. Simser dropped out of school but later attended Rideau High School where he was motivated to pursue Masonry studies. However, the program eventually closed down.
Criminal History
- In addition to a youth record, Mr. Simser has a record of adult convictions beginning in January 2011 until October of 2013. Convictions are registered for break-ins, thefts, trespassing at night, and failure to comply with probation orders. One drug related conviction also appears, from May 2012. He was convicted in October 2013 for uttering threats (threats to the police).
Psychiatric History
Mr. Simser has had multiple admissions to the Mental Health Unit of the Montfort Hospital and at least one admission to the Brockville General Hospital. Mr. Simser has described several conspiracies about the Montfort Hospital. He has expressed concerns about conspiracies stemming from the Department of National Defence mental health clinic at that hospital.
In June 2022, Mr. Simser was admitted to the Montfort Hospital for six days having been transferred there from the Winchester Hospital under a Form 1. Family had noted a significant decline in function, paranoia, and threats. The mother reported that Mr. Simser had increased his drug use, mainly crystal meth, with an escalation in his paranoia and agitation. He was making threats against his grandparents and saying that he would even burn the house down. Mr. Simser had been showing a six month decline in his function. He was not attending to his hygiene, nor was he helping around the grandparents’ home, despite having been there for years and being pleasant beforehand.
In July 2022, Mr. Simser spent four days at the Queensway-Carleton Hospital, again having been admitted on a Form 1. He had been threatening others, mainly the grandparents, and was expressing paranoia about others. He did not accept any medications while in hospital.
In September 2022, Mr. Simser spent about three weeks at the Ottawa Hospital. The police had been called by multiple individuals in an apartment building reporting his bizarre behaviour. The details are set out in the hospital report. In hospital, Mr. Simser refused all medications offered including a low dose antipsychotic (Olanzapine).
In October 2022, Mr. Simser, again spent about three weeks in hospital, at the Montfort. The OPP brought him there from the Winchester Hospital. Kept as an involuntary patient, Mr. Simser refused medication for the majority of the admission and was expressing persecutory beliefs and delusions. He was declared incapable for treatment decisions. When he contested the incapacity finding, the CCB overturned it. At the same time his involuntary admission was upheld. Towards the end of the admission, Mr. Simser began to accept medications. Seen later in November 2022, he continued to endorse beliefs of persecution while confirming that he was not taking prescribed medications.
In January 2023, Mr. Simser was admitted to the Montfort Hospital and kept there for 19 days. The police had brought him there from the Winchester Hospital following a report that he had threatened a neighbour with a machete. The police informed the psychiatrist that Mr. Simser had made numerous postings online that had caught the attention of the FBI and Interpol. When the police brought Mr. Simser to hospital, they found two knives on his person. Mr. Simser was advising that he did not need to attend follow-up at the Montfort. He also had been non-compliant with medications.
Mr. Simser made repeated statements about suing the hospital. He planned to fly to London, England where he claimed he was accepted to study “Nanotechnology”. Despite repeated education about his multiple hospitalizations and the diagnostic criteria for psychosis, he did not believe he was unwell or that he needed medications.
On January 14, 2023, while still a patient at the Montfort, it was learned that Mr. Simser had been making repeated phone calls to the police and was threatening government officials. On the next day, Mr. Simser intentionally pushed over a security guard while walking and became agitated and uncooperative. Chemical restraints were needed. Two days later, on January 16, 2023, Mr. Simser caused another physical altercation with a security guard. Again, restraints, physical and chemical, were needed. His pending CCB hearing, consequently, had to be rescheduled.
At the CCB hearing held on January 24, 2023, Mr. Simser’s involuntary hospitalization was upheld. A finding of incapacity was rescinded on the basis, according to the Board, that the psychiatrist had not completed a “fulsome capacity assessment”. Mr. Simser continued to refuse medication.
In January 2024, when Mr Simser was initially assessed, as ordered by the court to determine his fitness, he was presenting with prominent delusional features suggesting the presence of a primary psychotic disorder. The assessing psychiatrist, Dr. Wood, noted that he mainly presented with features suggestive of a Delusional Disorder versus Schizophrenia, which was likely exacerbated by his amphetamine use disorder and cannabis use disorder.
Mr. Simser’s current diagnoses are:
Unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder
Cannabis use disorder- severe, in early remission
Amphetamine use disorder- severe, in early remission
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Sanjiv Gulati. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Gulati indicated that Mr. Simser has been fairly stable in the past year and that he has continued to progress. Mr. Simser was approved for the Grove Transitional Program in December of 2024, and he participated in the program until he was discharged to independent housing on April 7, 2025. After spending some time at the Salus teaching apartment, he was discharged to his independent apartment. Mr. Simser benefits from a Salus rental supplement which will be attached to him whether he is under an ORB disposition or not.
Mr. Simser has remained compliant with his disposition and has not exhibited any aggressive or violent behaviour in the past year. He has abstained from substance use as confirmed by his negative urine drug screens tests over the past year.
Mr. Simser completed a functional assessment in February of 2025 and was deemed to be able to live independently. Since moving into his apartment, he has continued to participate in various groups including the Feeling Safe Group and the Outpatient Concurrent Disorders Group.
According to Dr. Gulati, Mr. Simser has demonstrated good insight into his illness and is no longer as guarded as he was with the treatment team. Though he is generally somewhat abrupt and monosyllabic, Mr. Simser has become more open in discussing his illness with members of his treatment team.
Mr. Simser has been working part-time while remaining on ODSP, and according to Dr. Gulati, this is a protective factor as it keeps him busy and provides him with meaningful and paid activity. Despite his employment obligations, Mr. Simser has maintained his appointments and continues to attend for hospital programming and to attend for his urine drug screens.
Mr. Simser has good family support and maintains regular contact with his mother.
Dr. Gulati believes that Mr. Simser remains a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his history of threatening behaviour, his criminal record, and his long history of substance use. He requires ongoing oversight and mental state monitoring, but this can now be achieved with a conditional discharge.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, Dr. Gulati testified that he believes that the potential for decompensation lies primarily with the exposure to substances which have been linked to the destabilization of Mr. Simser’s mental state. Furthermore, Dr. Gulati believes that though Mr. Simser’s insight has improved, he continues to be externally motivated by the terms of his disposition to comply with what is asked of him.
According to Dr. Gulati, Mr. Simser engages when he feels that he needs to. His insight does not yet appear to be internalized; however, Mr. Simser has demonstrated much improved engagement in his rehabilitation and treatment in the past year.
Further to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. Simser, Mr. Howard, Dr. Gulati responded as follows:
a. Dr. Gulati confirmed that at the time of the index offences, when Mr. Simser made threats against law enforcement, he believed that his children were in danger. In discussing this with Mr. Simser, he now says that he no longer believes that and appears sincere in this regard.
b. At the time of the NCR assessment, Dr. Gulati questioned the role of drug use versus an underlying psychotic illness. Mr. Simser is now capable of attributing his symptoms to the fact that he has a mental illness. Mr. Simser also accepts that he must take medication though Dr. Gulati believes that it is highly likely that Mr. Simser would stop taking medication if he was not compelled to do so by the terms of his disposition. Furthermore, Dr. Gulati is concerned that without a disposition that prohibits him from using substances, Mr. Simser would likely relapse into cannabis use or even possibly amphetamines, particularly if his mental stability had decompensated. Dr. Gulati emphasized that despite these issues, Mr. Simser has had a good year.
c. Mr. Simser has demonstrated mental health stability for only one year. If he complies with a less restrictive disposition, this would position him well towards an absolute discharge in the future.
d. It remains Dr. Gulati’s belief that if Mr. Simser was not mandated to take treatment at this time he would not do so.
e. Dr. Gulati stated that he was not aware if Mr. Simser had utilized his travel passes over the course of the past year and was not aware of any future travel plans on the part of Mr. Simser.
- Further to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Gulati responded as follows:
a. He confirmed that Mr. Simser takes his medication from a blister pack and that there had been no concerns with his compliance over the past year.
b. Dr. Gulati was not able to confirm how long Mr. Simser will remain on probation, to which Mr. Simser replied that he was on probation for another year.
c. Dr. Gulati confirmed that the treatment team is hoping that Mr. Simser will continue to progress over the course of the next year, that his motivation will continue to grow, and that it will become more internal than external, as is currently the case.
d. Dr. Gulati confirmed that if Mr. Simser was granted an absolute discharge by this panel, he would have access to the forensic program for another year, and this would be offered to him. Dr. Gulati confirmed that he was not aware of any plans that Mr. Simser might have for moving out of Ottawa.
e. Dr. Gulati is of the view that Mr. Simser’s medications are currently optimized although he maintains the concern that Mr. Simser would discontinue medication if granted an absolute discharge at this time. Dr. Gulati confirmed that the first page of the hospital report misstates the NCR finding date which should be corrected to May 17th, 2024. Dr. Gulati confirmed that prior to the index offences, Mr. Simser had lived independently in the past.
f. And finally, Dr. Gulati confirmed that other than wanting to be informed of any absence from his residence, the hospital is not concerned with any prospective travel plans as Mr. Simser has not expressed any interest in doing so.
- The hospital’s risk assessment is set out at pages 32 and 33 of the hospital report and is summarized below:
“Using the HCR V3, historical risk factors of relevance are the presence of a major mental disorder namely unspecified schizophrenia spectrum disorder. He has an extensive history of substance use which include cannabis use disorder and Amphetamine use disorder.
However, Joshua’s risk profile has evolved favorably over the course of treatment and discharge planning. There have been no indications of active psychosis, depressive episodes, or impulsive behavior that would compromise his safety or that of the public. The risk of substance use remains and close monitoring including UDS have helped as he knows the consequences of indulging in illicit substances may result in recall to the hospital.
Urine drug screening has been negative, and Joshua demonstrates better understanding of the impact of substance use on his mental health, maintaining abstinence since discharge. His probation requirements, including regular contact with probation officers and drug testing, are well integrated into his routine.
Staff and outreach teams report no concerns regarding Joshua’s behavior or compliance. Safety protocols regarding the possession of potentially hazardous items, such as his masonry tools, have been clearly communicated to him, with expectations set for appointments and hospital visits to maintain security.
Joshua has number of protective factors in place that include mandatory appointments, group attendance, employment, family contacts all of which are serving him well to keep making progress towards his recovery and a goal to get absolute discharge eventually.”
- No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
The hospital submits that Mr. Simser continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge would now be adequate to manage the risk.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, indicated his support of the hospital recommendation, emphasizing that Mr. Simser has a long history of mental illness and substance use. Mr. Simser has had a very positive year but has only recently moved to independent living and more time is needed to consolidate his gains and test him on a less restrictive disposition.
Counsel for Mr. Simson, Mr. Howard, advised that Mr. Simser is seeking an absolute discharge, and submits that on the basis of the progress made over the past year, the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is no longer met. Mr. Simser has demonstrated over the past year that he accepts that he has an illness and is stable and accepting treatment. He is more open and engaged with his treatment team, and no longer voicing delusions. He has transitioned successfully to the community and maintained his abstinence from illicit drug use.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Simser continues to meet the threshold of significant risk to the safety of the public as set out 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.
According to R. v. Winko, a ‘significant threat to the safety of the public’ means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, it is noted that evidence to determine whether an individual is a significant threat to the safety of the public can include the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment, if any, the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community, as well as other items.
Our finding that Mr. Simser continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital, both in its report and in the oral testimony of Dr. Gulati. Mr. Simser has suffered from an unspecified psychotic disorder for several years but has only recently started developing insight into his illness and its symptomology. Mr. Simser has a long-standing substance abuse disorder and substances are known to impact his psychiatric stability. In addition to his psychiatric difficulties, Mr. Simser also has a long history of criminal offending, going back to when he was a youth, and including convictions for uttering threats to police and property and drug-related offences.
The evidence persuades us that without an ORB disposition, Mr. Simser would likely disengage from treatment and follow-up, leading to the decompensation of his illness and relapse into substance-use. In that situation, there is a strong likelihood that he would once again become delusional and reoffend in a manner similar to the index offences.
It must be noted that Mr. Simser has made significant progress in his rehabilitation over the past year. He now lives independently, is working and has abstained from substances. He is externally motivated to comply with his disposition and to his credit, he has done so. The focus over the course of the next year will be to consolidate these gains and work on further developing insight and internal motivation to continue with treatment and psychiatric follow-up and abstinence from substances.
In view of Mr. Simser’s progress, we agree that a less restrictive disposition would be adequate to manage the ongoing risk. Should Mr. Simser maintain this positive trajectory, he could be well positioned for an absolute discharge at his next hearing. We wish him all the best.
Accordingly, having considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board finds that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition. The conditional discharge shall include the following conditions:
Report to the person in charge or his/her designate not less than once every four weeks;
Abstain from substances and submit to random urine drug screening;
Refrain from possessing weapons;
Advise the person in charge or his/her designate, in advance, of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more;
Notify, in writing, the person in charge or his/her designate and the ORB 24 hours in advance of any change in existing address or telephone number; and
Participate in the rehabilitation program created for him by the person in charge or his/her designate.
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 Boar