Re A. (J.R.), 2025 CanLII 102471

Ontario Review Board

Re: A. (J.R.)

ORB File No: 8557

Hearing held on: Friday, August 29, 2025

Place of Hearing: Syl Apps Youth Centre

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48 & 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley

Members: Dr. P. Darby

Dr. K. Hand

Mr. E. Siebenmorgen

Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: A. (J.R.)

Counsel: Mr. G. Iwasiw

The Person in Charge Counsel: Mr. I. Wright

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Derouard

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated September 8, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 8, 2024, A. (J.R.) was found unfit to stand trial on charges of assault, mischief under $5,000, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, assaulting a peace officer, uttering threats to cause death, break and enter, and failing to comply with a release order, all contrary to the Criminal Code. The Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) then held a hearing on July 18, 2024, and found that A. (J.R.) remained unfit to stand trial. The Board issued a Disposition dated August 27, 2024, pursuant to which he is ordered detained at the Syl Apps Youth Centre (“SAYC” or “the Hospital”), subject to various conditions and privileges, including entry into the community within 100 kilometres of the Hospital, and 72-hour passes within Ontario, accompanied by staff.

2. On Friday, August 29, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Syl Apps Youth Centre to conduct a review of A. (J.R.)’s Disposition and to inquire into his fitness to stand trial. A. (J.R.) attended the hearing, accompanied throughout by his social worker, Ms. N. Olguin. A. (J.R.) was represented by his counsel, Mr. Iwasiw, who attended the hearing by way of Zoom videoconferencing technology. Counsel for the Attorney General also attended by Zoom, as did A. (J.R.)’s father.

3. The issues at the hearing were: (a) whether, in the Board’s opinion, A. (J.R.) was fit to stand trial at the time of the hearing and, if not, (b) to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, having regard to the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4. The evidence for the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated August 21, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. C. McDonald, A. (J.R.)’s treating psychiatrist.

The Parties’ Positions

5. The parties were canvassed for their initial, without prejudice positions at the start of the hearing. Counsel for the Hospital advised that its position was that A. (J.R.) remained unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order on the terms and with changes as recommended in the Hospital Report. The recommended changes were the extension of A. (J.R.)’s travel privilege to seven (7) days from 72 hours, a community living privilege (in approved accommodation), and the discretion to consider upon A. (J.R.)’s 18th birthday a referral for transfer to a suitable adult facility within the province of Ontario. Asked about an appropriate reporting frequency to complement community living, counsel recommended a minimum twice-weekly reporting condition.

6. Counsel for the Attorney General advised that she agreed with the Hospital’s position on the fitness issue but reserved her position on the matter of Disposition, though she expected to eventually agree pending a hearing of the evidence. Counsel for A. (J.R.) anticipated that by the end of the hearing, he would be agreeing with the Hospital in respect of both issues. At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for A. (J.R.) confirmed their positions in support of that of the Hospital. In relation to these issues, the panel was presented, therefore, with a joint submission.

7. During the hearing of Dr. McDonald’s evidence, a panel member asked a question as to the potential utility of a Gladue ¹ Report, in light of A. (J.R.)’s indigenous identity. At the hearing’s conclusion, counsel for the Hospital and for the Attorney General ultimately took no position as to whether the Board should order a Gladue Report. Counsel for A. (J.R.) expressed support for the preparation of such a Report.

8. Pursuant to s. 141 (6) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, A. (J.R.)’s father, A. (T.), was asked whether he wished to make any representations or submissions. He expressly requested an extension of the duration of his son’s travel passes to permit travel closer to his home and was grateful to learn² that the Hospital had recommended seven-day passes.

Findings

9. For the following Reasons, the panel unanimously found that A. (J.R.) remains unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order containing the terms and conditions in the previous Detention Order, with the requested modifications, save for one. The panel concluded that it was unnecessary to specify, in the formal Disposition, that the Hospital is free to consider a transfer to an adult facility upon A. (J.R.) reaching his 18th birthday.

10. The panel also ordered the preparation of a Gladue Report, which should be provided in advance of the next review of A. (J.R.)’s Disposition.

Allegations of the Index Charges

11. The allegations made in support of the index charges appear in the synopses reproduced in the Hospital Report. For the sake of convenience, the essential allegations drawn from the synopses are quoted in these Reasons as follows:

" On Tuesday December 19th, 2023, at 5:35PM - Carla SLOBOZIAN called the Lac Seul Police Service Detachment to report that her son K.H. age 17 was assaulted this evening by his friend A. (J.R.) A. (J.R.) outside of her residence. SLOBOZIAN further stated that her son K.H. is safe and does not require medical attention. SLOBOZIAN also informed that A. (J.R.) A. (J.R.) had left her property after the incident and is believed to be at home. SLOBOZIAN requested that police attend her residence and speak to her son and speak with A. (J.R.) to inform him that he is no longer welcome at her residence.

At approximately 5:50pm – SLOBOZIAN contacted Police a second time now informing that A. (J.R.) had re-attended her property and is outside in her yard throwing rocks at her house. SLOBOZIAN requested police attend ASAP and remove A. (J.R.).

At approximately 5:56PM the Thunder Bay Provincial Communication centre advised that Derek KENNT of 2-B Franks Road Whitefish Bay Lac Seul First Nation called to report that A. (J.R.) is standing on Franks Road with a large hunting knife wearing a red plaid jacket and red running shoes. KENNY further updated advising that A. (J.R.) has fled the area walking alone towards the community baseball field.

Police Response: At approximately 6:10PM, Officers observed A. (J.R.) walking alone northbound on John Bull Drive towards the police cruiser holding what appeared to be a large knife in his right hand. Police proceeded driving towards A. (J.R.) and stopped the cruiser approximately 30 feet in front of A. (J.R.). Officers exited the cruised where Constable Edwards immediately informed A. (J.R.) Police, drop the knife. Drop the knife”. At this point, officers were in a safe position and drew their CEW S and pointed at A. (J.R.) again demanding him to drop the knife and get on the ground. A. (J.R.) did not comply and took two more steps towards officers and threw the knife at Constable Edwards narrowly missing him. Constable Edwards deployed his CEW at A. (J.R.) which was ineffective due to his winter clothing. Detective Constable Tinney further demanded A. (J.R.) to get on the ground as he is under arrest. A. (J.R.) did not comply and was observed with a thousand yard stare, he began to clench his fists and displayed a fighting stance. A. (J.R.) questioned police You guys had the chance to kill me! Why didn’t you?”. Detective Constable Tinney holstered his CEW and informed Constable Edwards that he was switching use of force to O/C spray. Detective Constable Tinney administered a 2-3 second stream of O/C to the forehead of A. (J.R.). Detective Constable Tinney then engaged A. (J.R.) physically where he was taken safely to the ground to effect an arrest. It was obvious at this point that Roka was experiencing a Mental Health break down as he continued to resist officers while placing handcuffs behind his back. A. (J.R.) advised police while being arrested that he was also in possession of a firearm. Search incident to arrest confirmed no firearm on Roka s person. Detective Constable Tinney informed A. (J.R.) that he is being arrested and charged with Assault Peace Officer with a weapon contrary to section 270.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and Weapons Possession for Dangerous Purpose contrary to section 88 of the Criminal Code. A. (J.R.) responded to police by stating fuck you”.

Detective Constable Tinney secured and seized the knife that was used in the offence – described as purple in colour with 8 inch blade commonly referred to as a chef s knife.

At approximately 6:25 PM- Police attended the Complainant SLOBOZIAN’S residence. SLOBOZIAN informed that A. (J.R.) threw a rock through her front living room window. Police obtained photograph of the damage. Both the outer and inner window panes were broken. Police further spoke with K.H. who informed police that he is friends with A. (J.R.) however he has recently been acting strange and lashing out at everyone. K.H. advised that earlier this evening, A. (J.R.) came to his house wanting to hangout with him. Due to A. (J.R.)’s recent behavior, K.H. had told him that he is staying inside for the night and did not want to hang out. This response upset A. (J.R.) where he pushed K.H. and proceeded to punch him striking the left side of his head. K.H. pushed A. (J.R.) away as he feared that A. (J.R.) would continue the aggressive behavior. A. (J.R.) left on his own terms and re-attended several minutes later yelling in the street and began to throw rocks at the residence. A. (J.R.) managed to hit the front living room window causing it to break. K.H. further observed A. (J.R.) to be holding what appeared to be a knife while yelling in the street where he then walked off on his own.

On December 19, 2023, the accused was charged with Assault s. 266 CC, Mischief - under $5k s. 430(4) CC, Weapon dangerous - s. 88 CC, Assault P.O. s270.01(1)(a) CC. He was released on a Form 11 by H.W.G McEwen with conditions. One of the conditions was "to be in your residence daily between the hours of 10pm and 6 am.”

On February 28, 2024, a variance was made to his release order permitting the accused to reside with his mother and surety at 112 Frenchman's Head Road.

On March 20, 2024, at 10:20 am the accused's mother (and surety) attended the LSPS detachment and provided a statement to Police regarding the accused, alleging he has not been home at his assigned curfew time "for the past week." The mother then signed an application for relief by surety.

At 10:57am in a youth statement under caution with his parent present, A. (J.R.) (2008/05/19) stated he was walking around like a normal day and was not under the influence of any drugs or alcohol. A. (J.R.) admitted he attended his father A. (T.)'s residence "without privilege." A. (J.R.) also admitted to gaining entry into the residence by kicking the door of the residence located behind Frenchman's Head School and further admitted to stealing "rollies of coins" from a jar located in the bedroom. A. (J.R.) gave the rollies to one of his friends but did not specify who. A. (J.R.) admitted to breaking into the same residence earlier in the day, gaining access into a window. However, he left after spotting a male inside unknown to him. When A. (J.R.) re-attended the residence later, someone had moved the ladder and locked up the window. When A. (J.R.) was questioned why he broke into the residence he stated the reason was due to being "bored". As a result, at 11:23 am A. (J.R.) was rearrested for YPC Break, Enter a place - commit indictable offence contrary to s. 348 (1)(b) CC and one count of YPC Failure to comply with release order - other than attend court contrary to s. 145 (5)(a) CC.”

Background Information

12. A. (J.R.) is a 17 year-old youth. He is single, with no dependents. He was age 15 at the time of the allegations leading to his charges and turned 16 shortly after being found unfit to stand trial. The Hospital Report contains information about his personal and mental health history (including prior hospitalizations) and describes his course in the Hospital subsequent to the date of the finding of unfitness. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit at the hearing, it is not necessary to extensively review this information in these Reasons. Some items that provide helpful context for the issues are highlighted below.

13. A. (J.R.)’s diagnoses, as reported in the Hospital Report are:

• Schizophrenia;

• Intellectual disability, mild;

• Social anxiety disorder; and

• Rule out alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder.

In her testimony at the hearing, Dr. McDonald reminded the panel, as noted at p. 17 of the Hospital Report, that A. (J.R.) also had a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder, which is in sustained remission in his current controlled environment.

14. A. (J.R.) is of Indigenous descent from Whitefish Bay of Lac Seul First Nation, in northwestern Ontario. Most of the following information is extracted from a Risk Needs Assessment by a probation officer, Ms. Jennifer Esterreicher, in 2024.

15. A. (J.R.) is the youngest of three children, born to C. (T.) and A. (T.). He has two older biological brothers, A. (T.) and A. (S.). There are several half siblings on the paternal side. C. (T.) and A. (T.) are both band members of Lac Seul First Nation living in Whitefish Bay. The parents are not together and reportedly separated when A. (J.R.) was four years old. He has identified having a close relationship with his mother. A. (T.) Sr. was reportedly not involved in A. (J.R.)’s life for an extended period but recently became involved in 2023 upon his involvement with the Child Protection and Youth Justice Systems. His mother, C. (T.), was in a relationship with T. (R.), who reportedly was a father figure and step-father to A. (J.R.).

16. It is reported that Tikinagan Child & Family Services (TCFS) have been involved throughout A. (J.R.)’s life. He was at times apprehended and placed into care due to concerns around supervision, structure and parental responses in the home. In 2008, the year of his birth, he began living with his paternal Kokum (grandmother) and this continued until 2010 when he returned home to live with his mother. Multiple reports were made to child protection staff regarding concerns around domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect, leading A. (J.R.) to be put into numerous care placements between 2011 and 2014. Afterwards, he began to live with his father; however, this proved to be difficult for his father to manage, due to reported safety concerns in the home. A. (J.R.) has not attended school regularly since June 2023. He was reportedly suspended for a period in 2022, following an incident where he exposed himself to another student. He reportedly engaged in disruptive behaviours, including defiance and aggression in the school environment. Historically, no learning disorders were documented.

17. Reportedly, referrals were made to TCFS on four occasions between December 2023 and February 2024, due to A. (J.R.)’s behaviours and mental health concerns (as further described below). He reportedly exhibited concerning and out of control behaviours for approximately two to three years under his mother’s care. She reportedly exhibited an absence of rules, control, or disciplinary action in relation to him.

Substance Use History

18. A. (J.R.) has a history of polysubstance abuse. He began to use cannabis at age seven years and has reportedly used it consistently while in the community, both before he began experiencing psychosis and throughout the course of his illness. He has self-disclosed trying cocaine and experimenting with methamphetamines, as well as occasionally drinking alcohol to excess.

19. According to his mother, A. (J.R.)’s use of marijuana decreased when he stopped socializing with his friends.

Psychiatric History

20. A. (J.R.)’s formal psychiatric history prior to the events leading to the index charges is outlined at pp. 3-4 of the Hospital Report. That information is primarily reproduced from the report of the assessment of fitness to stand trial on May 7, 2024, prepared by the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (TBRHSC). It is reported that A. (J.R.) first presented with symptoms of severe psychosis in the fall of 2022 (he would have been 14 years old at the time). In December of 2022, it was thought that he probably suffered from schizophrenia. It is stated that he may have experienced a decline in his mental health somewhat earlier, perhaps since the beginning of 2022. He was reportedly afflicted by a fairly severe level of psychotic symptomology, including auditory and visual hallucinations, and severe disorganization in thinking and behavior. There were also reports of significant instability in mood, mostly with depressive features.

21. A. (J.R.) reportedly had several hospital admissions for the purpose of containing him in a therapeutic environment and treating his psychosis. He was first admitted to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHU) at TBRHSC between December 16, 2022, and January 11, 2023, for a relapse of his psychosis. There, he was treated with injectable antipsychotic medication and discharged with follow-up in place through services in Thunder Bay, including the First Place First Episode Psychosis Program. He returned home to his mother.

22. It is unclear what level of mental health care A. (J.R.) received in his home community after returning from Thunder Bay. However, it appears that he remained reasonably stable for some months, although he experienced persistent psychotic symptoms and a corresponding decline in his level of functioning in the community. He was readmitted to hospital on December 9, 2023, when he presented at the Sioux Lookout Health Centre and was transferred to CAMHU at TBRHSC, having presented again with increased psychotic symptoms and concerns regarding unsafe behavior. This hospital admission was five days in duration and the first set of index charges arose just days later.

23. In January 2024, A. (J.R.) was again admitted to CAMHU through the Emergency Department at Sioux Lookout Health Centre and placed on a Mental Health Act Form 1. Concerns identified at that time included suicidal ideation and ongoing psychosis. He had been experiencing auditory hallucinations and stated that the voices were telling him to “end it”. He was treated in hospital with antipsychotic medication and discharged home. After some weeks, he returned to hospital due to ongoing instability. He was reportedly using marijuana heavily and becoming periodically agitated and aggressive. When assessed in the Emergency Department, he was difficult to engage and mostly non-verbal, apparently in a worsening psychosis. He was returned to CAMHU on February 18, 2024, and was discharged home on February 22, 2024. He continued with outpatient psychiatric follow-up through a program from Thunder Bay until his arrest on March 19, 2024, where he was put into custody at the Creighton Youth Centre.

24. In addition to the foregoing more recent information, it is reported that A. (J.R.) had early developmental and social issues, including possible in utero exposure to alcohol, neglect, exposure to domestic violence, and behavioural problems, including aggressive behaviours.

Evidence at the Hearing

25. A. (J.R.) has been at SAYC since June 4, 2024. On admission, he presented as unwell, with significant disorganization of his thought process and a blunted affect, avolition, minimal verbal communication and minimal ability to follow along in an interview. At that time, he had not received his antipsychotic medication since early May, leading to a progressive deterioration in his mental status. Despite his disorganization, he was able to articulate that “yes,” he was having difficult thoughts that he felt he would go to “jail” for and would not share but stated “yes” when asked if he was having thoughts of harming himself or others.

26. Over the course of the reporting year, A. (J.R.) has shown some improvements in his positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, reporting less intense auditory hallucinations, improvements in organization of thought, and improvements in affect and motivation. His symptoms have waxed and waned, often related to stressors.

27. The Hospital Report notes that A. (J.R.) was assaulted on two occasions by peers, in June and December of 2024, but did not retaliate on either occasion. A critical incident was reported resulting a duty to report to CAS (Children’s Aid Society) for an alleged sexual abuse disclosure. A. (J.R.) disclosed that he had previously sexually assaulted a younger cousin. He reported that he was intoxicated on substances at the time and was approximately twelve years old. He demonstrated significant remorse for this and believed that it was the reason that his family abandoned him when he came to SAYC.

28. Dr. McDonald is a child and adolescent psychiatrist. She adopted and updated the Hospital Report’s contents in her evidence. She has been A. (J.R.)’s treating psychiatrist since his arrival at the Hospital.

29. Dr. McDonald said that the positive and negative symptoms of A. (J.R.)’s schizophrenia have substantially improved since the initiation of clozapine, the dosage of which has been gradually increased. The week of the hearing, it had been further increased and he was receiving two doses per day at 425 mg each. Dr. McDonald anticipated that at this dose, the maximum benefit from clozapine would likely be achieved within approximately six months. He tolerates the medication well and has no compliance issues. Dr. McDonald expected that A. (J.R.) would need to be on the medication indefinitely. He would become very unwell within weeks if he were to stop taking it. Dr. McDonald stated that A. (J.R.) is marginally capable to consent to his treatment, as he appreciates that he experiences psychosis and that his medication helps.

30. Dr. McDonald testified that the clozapine has helped improve A. (J.R.)’s memory and his ability to focus, such that he is doing better in his teaching and fitness coaching sessions. His ability to engage in conversations has improved and he now initiates conversations “de novo”. His level of thought organization has also improved, although there are times when this fluctuates, as does his demonstrated cognitive ability. With respect to the latter, this is a feature commonly seen in cases of in utero alcohol exposure. The Hospital has not been able to verify alcohol-related neurodegenerative disorder, due to the inability to locate and contact A. (J.R.)’s mother.

31. In addition to his pharmacological treatment, A. (J.R.) receives Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for psychosis (CBT-p), trauma-related counselling, and recreational programming that includes his use of accompanied passes into the community, as described in detail in the Hospital Report. He also attends school regularly through the Halton District School Board (HDSB) Care and Treatment Program at SAYC. As noted in the Hospital Report, while A. (J.R.)’s community passes have gone well, he frequently avoids large groups and crowds and has panic symptoms when in them. Accordingly, Social Anxiety Disorder has been added to his diagnoses.

32. The Hospital Report and Dr. McDonald note A. (J.R.)’s connection to his Indigenous culture. He participates in Native Services every Friday and can access the sweat lodge at the Hospital. Furthermore, he is connected to an elder in the community whom he visits bi-weekly at the local library. He enjoys these visits. He also reportedly has a strong rapport with the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit teacher at SAYC school, where he can learn more about his culture. Dr. McDonald agreed, in response to a panel member’s question, that a Gladue Report would be beneficial in A. (J.R.)’s case.

33. Dr. McDonald provided extensive evidence in relation to the issue of A. (J.R.)’s fitness to stand trial. This evidence is not reviewed in detail below. She most recently assessed his fitness on the morning of the hearing, and her opinion is that he remains unfit. While he demonstrated improvement in his ability to answer the basic Taylor³ questions, he still cannot appreciate the meaning of all of his answers. His cognitive processing and executive functioning are quite impaired, due to his schizophrenia and his intellectual disability. His schizophrenia is very subject to stressors, such as where there is much information “going around”. His ability to integrate such information and select from options is impaired, as is his ability to make the best decisions for himself.

34. Notably, at the conclusion of her evidence, after Dr. McDonald had been questioned on all issues by all counsel and panel members, she was asked to comment on whether A. (J.R.)’s ability to participate in the hearing on that date was reflective of his ability to participate in a court hearing. Dr. McDonald replied in the affirmative and provided her opinion that he cannot meaningfully participate in the court process.

35. Dr. McDonald recited the specific questions asked and answers provided by A. (J.R.) during her recent assessment of his fitness. She also summarized extensive efforts made by her and his social worker, Ms. Olguin, to engage in ongoing coaching sessions to improve his fitness to stand trial. These efforts included extensive preparation for and participation at a meeting between A. (J.R.) and counsel, as described in the Hospital Report. With this degree of support, A. (J.R.) began to demonstrate more understanding of the process and improvement in his ability to communicate with counsel.

36. At Dr. McDonald’s suggestion, the panel heard from Ms. Olguin, who described two booklets created for A. (J.R.). She goes through them with him approximately three times weekly. The first booklet describes how he came to be at SAYC, including what it means to be unfit to stand trial. The second booklet deals with preparation for court, including what a lawyer does.

37. Dr. McDonald testified that with the initiation of clozapine at a high dose, there is a chance that things could improve in relation to A. (J.R.)’s fitness to stand trial. She could not, however, predict the degree of improvement.

38. Dr. McDonald supplemented and updated the Hospital Report in relation to the risk factors in A. (J.R.)’s case and the specific recommendations for changes to his Disposition. She noted that since arriving at SAYC, he has demonstrated no aggression and has even refrained from verbal conflict. She noted that risk is very contained at the Hospital, and A. (J.R.)’s community passes involve accompaniment by to staff members. Alluding to his prior history and the suboptimal care and support he had previously received in the community, Dr. McDonald stated that he still experiences cravings for substances and confirmed that he still experiences hallucinations. His illness is fragile, and he would not be able to resist consuming substances if unsupervised in the community. Even the consumption of one marijuana “joint” could prompt a deterioration of his mental health and place him at risk. Dr. McDonald estimated that A. (J.R.)’s risk for violence in the community would be very high if he were placed into an environment containing multiple additional stressors, including the presence of substances.

39. Dr. McDonald supported the extension of A. (J.R.)’s travel passes within Ontario to seven days. She testified that his father has “stepped up” and become a support for him. While she could not confirm that A. (J.R.) and his father communicate weekly (there was previously a schedule for weekly telephone calls), she stated that the communication between them is regular and that the increased contact and the improvement in their relationship are important to A. (J.R.)’s well-being.

40. Dr. McDonald spoke to the Hospital’s request for a community living provision in the Disposition. She acknowledged that transitioning A. (J.R.) into the community was not a real priority for the treatment team in the coming year. If he remained unfit to stand trial, the intent is to keep him in the Hospital unless there was a requirement to move him into the community (prompted by, for example, a stay of his charges). Dr. McDonald could not immediately identify a community accommodation that would be appropriate for him. She said that an appropriate facility would be, for example, a staff-supported group home with experience in supporting dual-diagnosis individuals. A. (J.R.) would also require regular psychiatric care, which she would provide herself on an outpatient basis through her private practice. The Hospital has no specific forensic outpatient service, so a team of sorts would need to be developed in order to support A. (J.R.) in the community.

41. Dr. McDonald thought that a facility in the Hamilton area, where there was more housing supported through Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) funding, may be a possibility for A. (J.R.). A community living clause in the Disposition would enable the Hospital to place him on appropriate waiting lists and, if a space became available, would allow SAYC to take advantage of this if the treatment team thought A. (J.R.) was ready for this step.

42. Dr. McDonald acknowledged that with respect to a potential transfer to an adult forensic facility after A. (J.R.)’s 18th birthday, he would reach that milestone prior to the next annual review of his Disposition (his birthday is May 19). She has been told by others that there are lengthy wait times for admission to adult facilities, so she would like to get him at least onto a list after his 18th birthday. However, she would not like to actually transfer him to another facility until he reached age 21, when he would no longer be eligible to remain at SAYC. She was being extra cautious in seeking discretion to consider a referral to an adult facility.

43. No further evidence was led following Dr. McDonald’s testimony.

Analysis and Conclusions

Fitness to Stand Trial

44. The panel unanimously concluded that it could not render an opinion that A. (J.R.) was fit to stand trial at the time of the hearing. His ability to conduct a defence is significantly impaired by the effects of a major mental illness (schizophrenia), a mild intellectual disability that is permanent, and a social anxiety disorder. In addition, A. (J.R.) likely experienced in utero alcohol exposure, though this is not verified. A. (J.R.)’s ability to appreciate the information that he receives and integrate it into options from which he can select is limited by impairments to his cognitive processing and executive functions. In addition, as was evident to all present from A. (J.R.)’s presentation during the hearing, while he was able, with the constant support of his social worker, to sit quietly and respectfully during the proceedings, he was visibly distracted and not able to focus on what was being said. Finally, Dr. McDonald’s opinion that A. (J.R.) cannot, at this point, meaningfully participate in the court process was unchallenged.

45. A. (J.R.) has nevertheless made significant strides since arriving at SAYC. Under Dr. McDonald’s care, the dosage of his antipsychotic medication, clozapine, has been gradually increased, yielding improvements in both the positive and negative symptoms of his schizophrenia. He is now demonstrating an ability to initiate conversations. His level of organization in his thoughts has improved, though fluctuations persist. A. (J.R.) has demonstrated improvement in his ability to remember information and to answer the basic Taylor questions related to fitness to stand trial. His answers to those questions, as related to the panel by Dr. McDonald, demonstrate not merely an ability to provide rote answers to questions he has been repeatedly asked, but are beginning to reveal a level of comprehension. For example, Dr. McDonald testified that when asked about the role of his lawyer, A. (J.R.) expressed that the lawyer helps with options to make decisions. With great efforts at coaching from the SAYC team, he has begun to show more of an understanding in his ability to communicate with counsel and participate in the court process. These are indications that even within the limitations imposed by his intellectual disability, A. (J.R.) has made strides suggestive of the possibility of future improvement in his fitness to stand trial.

46. In reaching its conclusion on the issue of fitness to stand trial, the panel has applied the principles enunciated by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 2023, as recently affirmed and clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26. Read together, the reasons for judgment of both courts provide much assistance in applying the definition of “unfit to stand trial” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code to the evidence in particular cases. The panel is cognizant of the serious consequences of a finding of unfitness to stand trial, including the loss of the accused’s liberty, and appreciates that such a finding must not be made lightly (Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 at para. 73). The evidentiary bar for an opinion that an accused, previously found unfit, is now fit to stand trial must not be set too high.

47. The panel is also mindful of the directions from both the Supreme Court in Bharwani and the Court of Appeal decision in Clayton (Re), 2025 ONCA 305, wherein the Court emphasized that test for fitness must be considered in the context of the nature of the charges and the allegations in the particular case. As evident from the statements of those allegations, the charges appear simple and the allegations factually straightforward. A trial would not appear to involve legal complexities, and A. (J.R.) appeared to demonstrate some understanding of the essential complaints against him.

48. The panel notes, as well, that fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests (Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 at paras. 6, 72). Our finding in this case is not dependent upon Dr. McDonald’s opinion that A. (J.R.)’s ability to make the best decisions for himself is impaired.

The Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

49. The panel unanimously accepted the parties’ joint recommendation and concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order reflecting the terms and conditions agreed upon. A. (J.R.) has done very well in the structured and supportive setting of the Hospital. To his great credit, he has been compliant with his medication, which is taken orally. He has managed his accompanied privileges well, including a trip to Thunder Bay to visit his father. In order to maintain his good progress and to manage the public safety risk that he represents, he will require a gradual transition to community living that would include supportive accommodation in a supervised setting. The panel accepts Dr. McDonald’s evidence that A. (J.R.) is not yet ready to be discharged to community living and that the Hospital needs to approve his eventual accommodation. Accordingly, a Detention Order is necessary.

50. While A. (J.R.) is not currently ready for community living, the panel is satisfied that the privilege of community living in approved accommodation should be included in his Disposition. Such a privilege can support the Hospital’s efforts to place A. (J.R.) on wait lists for accommodation that can support his particular needs, both as a young person and as an individual living with cognitive challenges.

51. The panel is also satisfied that A. (J.R.) should have discretionary seven-day accompanied passes to travel within Ontario. Dr. McDonald testified that, although his father had not been a major influence on A. (J.R.) in the past, he has “stepped up” since learning of his son’s mental health issues. A. (J.R.) Sr. attended both of his son’s ORB hearings and is in regular contact with him, according to Dr. McDonald. Increased contact between father and son and improvement in their relationship is seen by Dr. McDonald as important to A. (J.R.)’s wellbeing. The panel accepts this evidence.

52. With respect to the Hospital’s request that it have the discretion to consider, upon A. (J.R.)’s 18th birthday, a referral for a transfer to a suitable adult facility, the panel concluded that no specific provision to this effect is required in the Disposition. It is already open to the Hospital to initiate discussions with other forensic services within the province of Ontario at any time. Furthermore, once SAYC is in a position to formally request a transfer to an adult facility, it already has available the mechanisms of an early review request under s. 672.81 (2) of the Criminal Code and Rule 13 of the Ontario Review Board’s Rules of Procedure.

53. The panel directs the preparation and distribution of a Gladue Report in respect of A. (J.R.). No party objected to the preparation of such a Report, and Dr. McDonald believed that it could be beneficial. Counsel for A. (J.R.) expressed support for making such a report available, and the panel agrees with his submission that such a report can provide a thorough background of the Lac Seul community, as well as the background of A. (J.R.) and his extended family. In this regard, it is noted that while the available background information in the Hospital Report was sufficient to enable the panel to make a necessary and appropriate Disposition, that background information is extremely general and contains little to no information as to the availability of resources and supports to facilitate A. (J.R.)’s eventual reintegration into his home community.

54. The panel wishes, in conclusion, to commend A. (J.R.) for his cooperative relationship with his elder, with Dr. McDonald, with his social worker, and with the other staff and residents at SAYC. It is hoped that this therapeutic relationship will continue to strengthen in the year ahead.

55. In approaching this matter, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. We have also paid particular attention to his age and to his special needs as a young person, as well as his circumstances as an indigenous youth who is currently required to reside far away from his home community.

DATED this 8th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Eric Siebenmorgen

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1This is a reference to R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688.
2. 2Due to a misunderstanding as to the starting time for the hearing, A. (J.R.) Sr., who lives in northwestern Ontario in the Central Time Zone, joined the hearing after it had commenced.
3. 3This is a reference to principles enunciated in R. v. Taylor (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 323, 1992 CanLII 7412 (ONCA).