Re: Jeff Brigham
ORB File No: 8830
Hearing held on: Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. L. Ramshaw Dr. C. Rose Ms. C. Fromstein Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jeff Brigham Counsel: Mr. B. Sacevich
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Pollak
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 7, 2025)
Introduction
On July 16, 2025, Mr. Brigham was found unfit to stand trial on a number of charges. That hearing took place in Fort Frances, Ontario. The judge directed that Mr. Brigham be detained at a secure treatment facility anywhere in Ontario.
The Board understands that Mr. Brigham remained in the Fort Frances Jail and that he was transferred from the Fort Frances Jail to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“the Hospital”) on September 10, 2025.
On Wednesday, September 17, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital and conducted the initial disposition hearing for Mr. Brigham.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendation to the Board.
Ms. Davidson appeared for the Hospital and advised of the hospital position that Mr. Brigham remains unfit to stand trial, continues to be a significant threat to public safety, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is for Mr. Brigham to be detained in the hospital but with privileges up to and including living in the community in approved accommodation.
Ms. Pollak is counsel for the Attorney General. She appeared via videoconference from Rainy River. Ms. Pollak agrees with the hospital position. In particular, she agrees that Mr. Brigham remains unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order as requested by the hospital.
Mr. Sacevich appeared for Mr. Brigham. Mr. Sacevich wished to hear the evidence prior to stating the position on behalf of his client.
We note for the record that Mr. Brigham’s sister and sister-in-law joined this hearing via teleconference.
Outstanding Charges:
- The circumstances of the outstanding charges are excerpted from the hospital report dated August 27, 2025, as follows:
“On Monday June 24th, 2024, at 622 Atwood Ave Sean and P.F. attended the Rainy River detachment to report on going harassment. The harassment was perpetrated by a Jeff BRIGHAM.
Jeff BRIGHAM on several occasions had yelled "DIE!" ''KILL!" to P.F. while he was on his way to school. P.F. had expressed to police that he feared for his life and has been looking over his shoulder. This information was relayed to police during the course of the witness statement. As a result reasonable grounds were formed to charge Jeff BRIGHAM with Uttering Threats - Cause death or Bodily Harm section 264.1 of the Criminal Code
Jeff BRIGHAM on another occasion raised a weed whacker in a threatening manner towards the victim P.F. and his father Sean. As a result reasonable grounds were formed to charge Jeff BRIGHAM with Criminal Harassment - threatening conduct section 264(2) of the Criminal Code.
Jeff BRIGHAM was given the opportunity to turn himself into the custody of the Rainy River OPP on July 31st, 2024. He refused to turn himself in and as a result a warrant is being requested for his immediate arrest.
On 2025-06-03, at 16:12 hrs, the Provincial Communications Centre received a call from Sean FORSTER, reporting a threats occurrence at his residence located at T[…]Street in Rainy River, Ontario. Sean reported that he was being threatened by his neighbour, Jeff BRIGHAM, who currently was bound by conditions to not communicate, directly or indirectly, with himself or his son, and not to go to his residence. Sean reported ongoing harassment from BRIGHAM, as he would constantly, unprovokedly go outside his residence and shout at Sean as he was doing yard work, stating things to the effect of, "Fuck you, you're going to die, you're going to die, wanna fight, wanna fight," which occurred specifically today at around 3:00 p.m. Sean was worried for the safety of himself and his family as he believed that BRIGHAM's mental health was starting to decline and his violent tendencies were starting to increase based on the nature of what he was saying to him and the aggressive manner.
Sean reported that he had a long history with BRIGHAM before the increase in threatening behaviour, and stated that BRIGHAM has been bound by conditions not to communicate with him or his son for over a year, but has been breaching those conditions over the last several weeks, as BRIGHAM would continue to exit his residence and scream at Sean and had proof of that today as he took a video of him doing that. Sean believed that these threats were real and believed that BRIGHAM needed to be apprehended as he feared for his safety and his family’s safety and thought that Jeff would follow through with the threats. Currently, he believed that BRIGHAM was back in his residence as when he took a video of him being threatened, he believed that BRIGHAM thought Sean had called the police and that BRIGHAM would now cooperate for the rest of the evening. He believed that BRIGHAM would not answer the door if police responded as he's watched police in the past try to conduct door knocks at the residence, and he will not cooperate with police. Sean reported that he did not have specific dates and times of the previous threats and harassment, but stated there was numerous witnesses and they could speak to possible dates and times as BRIGHAM had breached his release conditions.
At 16:49 hrs, PC BARNARD took an audio recorded statement from Sean where he detailed the incident. At 16:57 hrs, the statement was concluded.
At 17:00 hrs, PC BARNARD confirmed on CPIC and Niche that BRIGHAM was bound by a Form 10 Undertaking, and was specifically breaching condition "no communication, directly or indirectly, with Sean FORSTER".
Sean subsequently sent police a true copy of the video taken today of BRIGHAM threatening him and harassing him, which was uploaded to DEMS. Based on the confirmation of the accused's identity and the evidence provided, PC BARNARD had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge Jeff BRIGHAM with:
Failure to comply with undertaking, contrary to 145(4)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Criminal Harassment - threatening conduct, contrary to 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Uttering Threats - Cause death or Bodily Harm, contrary to 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
At 20:48 hours, PC BARNARD attempted to arrest BRIGHAM at his residence, he was observed by PC MALLOCH standing at the door through the window staring at the door. But refused to comply with police directions to come out and surrender. PC BARNARD attempted to reason with BRIGHAM through the door, but he would not come out of his residence. Police conducted a safety plan with the Victim and requested a warrant for BRIGHAM’s arrest.
On Saturday June 14, 2025, Rainy River OPP received a call for service at 119 Third Street in the town of Rainy River in regard to a family dispute in progress. Officers attended the address and spoke with the victim, Glen BRIGHAM, who advised that his son, Jeff BRIGHAM, pushed and shoved him unprovoked upon G. BRIGHAM entering the residence. Jeff BRIGHAM was arrested and charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code. JEFF BRIGHAM was identified by Verbal ID compared with RMS Photo.
Glen BRIGHAM, upon entering his residence, was met by Jeff BRIGHAM, who unprovokingly pushed and shoved him to the ground repeatedly before a physical and verbal argument ensued. Through the course of the investigation, after speaking with Glen BRIGHAM, reasonable grounds were formed to arrest and charge Jeff BRIGHAM with Assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.”
Evidence at Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence a number of documents, most of which have been filed in the court proceeding. In addition, the Board also admitted into evidence the hospital report dated June 29, 2025, and the hospital report dated August 27, 2025. As the hospital reports were made exhibits in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the hospital reports in these reasons.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Sheppard. Dr. Sheppard first advised that Mr. Brigham was transferred to the hospital on September 10, 2025. Dr. Sheppard’s involvement had been in relation to doing fitness assessments and providing evidence to the trial judge. Dr. Sheppard noted that now that Mr. Brigham is in hospital, Dr. Schubert will become Mr. Brigham’s most responsible physician.
We note that Mr. Brigham was present at this hearing. Dr. Sheppard noted that Mr. Brigham has been easy to manage on his unit. Mr. Brigham has not engaged in any threatening behaviour. Mr. Brigham spends a considerable amount of time in his own room, but he does have some interactions with staff and co-patients.
Mr. Brigham inquires, “When can I go home?” Dr Sheppard believes that Mr. Brigham does not know why he is in hospital.
Dr Sheppard noted that Mr. Brigham has speech difficulties, and it is challenging to have meaningful conversations with him. Mr. Brigham apparently believes that he has cancer and somehow was able to communicate that to the doctor. Dr Sheppard noted that he and the clinical team have greater success in communicating with Mr. Brigham by writing questions. Dr. Sheppard believes that Mr. Brigham will read the written questions but try to answer verbally. It is difficult to understand Mr. Brigham’s verbal responses.
Dr. Sheppard noted that Mr. Brigham is cognitively impaired. The doctor believes this relates to Mr. Brigham’s cerebral palsy. Dr. Sheppard noted that Mr. Brigham has both receptive and expressive language impairment.
Dr. Sheppard opines that Mr. Brigham is unfit to stand trial and would not be able to participate meaningfully in any trial. Dr. Sheppard is of the opinion that Mr. Brigham would not understand the nature or object of any trial, he would not understand the possible consequences of any trial and would not be able to communicate appropriately with his lawyer. When Dr. Sheppard conducted fitness assessments, Mr. Brigham generally responded by saying, “No.” Dr. Sheppard did get a response on a previous fitness assessment that Mr. Brigham does not believe that there are any outstanding criminal charges. Dr. Sheppard is aware that Mr. Brigham has a history of prior admissions to psychiatric hospitals.
Dr. Sheppard understands that for a considerable time, Mr. Brigham lived with his father in Rainy River. In fact, his father worked full time and for most of the week Mr. Brigham would be living on his own.
Dr. Sheppard is hopeful that Mr. Brigham will be able to return to living in the community, but this will take a number of months.
In response to questions from Mr. Sacevich, Dr. Sheppard acknowledged that Mr. Brigham has hearing difficulties. Dr. Sheppard noted that when he last formally assessed Mr. Brigham for fitness, Mr. Brigham used headphones as a hearing aid.
Dr. Sheppard understands that since his admission, the hospital has attempted to utilize a “pocket talker” to assist Mr. Brigham’s hearing, but Mr. Brigham refused to use it.
It is not clear whether Mr. Brigham currently suffers from a psychotic illness. The doctor understands Mr. Brigham has been treated with antipsychotic medication and also antidepressant medication. Dr. Sheppard understands that Mr. Brigham seemed to get better help with antidepressant medication.
Mr. Brigham had on the table in front of him, a book. In response to a question from Mr. Sacevich, Dr. Sheppard was not certain whether the book was a communication device.
Dr. Sheppard was asked about a no-contact provision. Mr. Sacevich suggested that Mr. Brigham’s father would want to have communication with his son and Dr. Sheppard noted that the hospital was asking for a no-contact provision “save and except with the written revocable consent.”
In response to questions from a member of the panel, Dr. Sheppard acknowledged that Mr. Brigham has a high school education, and also apparently worked for approximately one year in Winnipeg.
In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Sheppard acknowledged the potential benefits of a neuropsychological assessment.
In response to a question from another panel member, Dr. Sheppard acknowledged that Mr. Brigham may be entitled to receive funding from Developmental Services Ontario (“D.S.O.”)
The Alternate Chair noted that Mr. Brigham’s sister Keshia was participating by telephone. In response to questions from the Alternate Chair, she acknowledged that her brother has hearing difficulties and that it is frequently very difficult to understand his speech.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
Ms. Davidson asked the Board to accept Dr. Sheppard’s evidence, and the evidence contained in the hospital reports. In particular we should find that Mr. Brigham remains unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is for Mr. Brigham to be detained at the Hospital with a number of prohibitions and privileges that will be set out more formally in the Board’s disposition.
Ms. Pollak also accepts that Mr. Brigham is presently unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order as requested by the Hospital.
Mr. Sacevich also agreed that at the present time his client is unfit to stand trial, and at the present time the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order as suggested by the Hospital with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community in approved accommodation.
Findings of the Board
- The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Sheppard, and the evidence contained in the hospital reports. We accept that at the present time Mr. Brigham is unfit to stand trial. We note that Mr. Brigham was found unfit to stand trial by the trial judge on July 16, 2025. Accordingly, there is no longer a presumption that Mr. Brigham is fit to stand trial. We have no hesitation in accepting Dr. Sheppard’s evidence that at the present time Mr. Brigham cannot meaningfully participate in any court proceeding. The panel is aware of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203. We note paragraph six and the following:
“An accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so.”
This panel accepts that at the present time Mr. Brigham does not have the ability to make and communicate reality-based decisions and to instruct counsel appropriately.
We accept that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. All parties ultimately agreed to this disposition. Our disposition will include the ability to live in the community in approved accommodation with reporting requirements of not less than once per week. Our disposition will include a prohibition against the use of substances including alcohol and the obligation to submit samples of his breath or urine. Our disposition shall also include a weapons prohibition.
We will direct that Mr. Brigham have no communication directly or indirectly with Sean Joseph Forster. Our disposition shall direct that Mr. Brigham have no contact with his father, Glen Brigham, save and except with the written revocable consent from Mr. Glen Brigham. This will allow Mr. Brigham’s father to have contact with his son if that is his wish to do so.
In arriving at our decision, the Board has considered the paramount factor of public safety, Mr. Brigham’s community reintegration, his mental condition, and his other needs, as required by s. 672.54 of the Code.
DATED this 7th day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
J. Goldenberg,
Alternate Chairperson
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board