Ontario Review Board
Re: Douglas Ernest Tompkins
ORB File No: 0856
Hearing held on: Thursday, September 11, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal Members: Dr. P.E. Cook Dr. S. Wiseman Hon. C. Nelson Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Douglas Ernest Tompkins Counsel: Ms. C. Whillier
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 9, 2025)
Introduction
On September 13, 1985, Mr. Douglas Ernest Tompkins was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) on a charge of murder contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated June 17, 2024 ordering that he be detained on an all-male unit at the Forensic Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in a 24-hour-a-day supervised all male residence, approved by the person in charge. While residing in such accommodation he is not permitted community access unless he is accompanied by residence staff, CAMH staff or a Passport worker.
On Thursday, September 11, 2025, the Board convened in a hearing to review Mr. Tompkins’ Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Tompkins was present at the hearing, represented by counsel, Ms. Whillier. The hospital was represented by Ms. M. Warner and the Attorney General by Ms. V. Culp. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Tompkins continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition which is also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Positions of the Parties
- At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital advised that it was the Hospital position that Mr. Tompkins continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is the continuation of the current detention order without change. Both counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Tompkins supported the Hospital position. All counsel agreed that Mr. Tompkins still continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The matter proceeded as a joint submission.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated July 23, 2025 (Exhibit 1) and the oral evidence of Dr. Swayze, Mr. Tompkins’ attending psychiatrist since January 2024.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Tompkins continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without change.
Index Offence
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
“On April 4, 1976, on the grounds of the Huronia Regional Centre, the murder of another resident there took place. Apparently [the] patient took this woman near the boat house where they had intercourse. Afterwards, the woman was bleeding from the vagina and the patient used his undershorts, soaked in the lake, to wipe her off and stop the bleeding. Patient then asked the girl for $10.00 she owed him and she in turn asked for $5.00 “for the fun”. She then said something to the effect that she was going to tell [the] staff about what had happened whereupon patient made her sit on a chair, tied her to it, pulled her clothes off and pushed a stick up into her vagina. He then kicked her, knocking her and the chair over and dropped a 50-pound rock on her head.
The woman was found tied with a rope around her stomach and the chair. Her right leg was tied to a chair leg. The belt from her ski jacked was taken and knotted around her neck and a rag was found in the garbage [that] was stuffed down her throat. Another piece of the rag was also knotted around her neck. Cause of death was asphyxiation.
Background Information Regarding the Accused
Mr. Tompkins is 70 years of age (born in 1955) and has been under the jurisdiction of the Board since 1985, a period of about 40 years. He has been detained in hospital with limited community access for the entirety of his time under the jurisdiction of the Board. He is treatment capable and can manage his finances.
Mr. Tompkins has been institutionalized since he was 8 years old. In 1961 he attended a school for developmentally delayed children. Based on assessments completed due to concerning behaviour, institutional care was recommended, but rejected by his parents. After Mr. Tompkins’ parents separated, he was placed in care with the Children’s Aid Society in 1963 and admitted to the Huronia Regional Health Centre (HRHC). The index offence occurred when he was 20 years old.
The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Tompkins was admitted to hospital from the HRHC on an involuntary basis following an assault and possible rape of a female resident in January 1976. The diagnoses at that time were mild mental retardation, mild behavioural disorder, query antisocial, and epilepsy. He was returned to the HRHC with a recommendation that the charges be dealt with through Corrections.
Following the index offence on April 4, 1976, Mr. Tompkins was admitted to the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene (now known as Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care) on April 13, 1976. At that time, he was regarded as unfit to stand trial. He was returned to the Barrie court having received a recommendation of "fit to stand trial" in 1984 and on September 13, 1985, he was found NGRI and was returned to the hospital in Penetanguishene.
Mr. Tompkins does not have a history of substance use, for either drugs or alcohol.
Legal History
- Mr. Tompkins was charged with two counts of setting fire to a substance in 1976; however, the charges were eventually withdrawn. While at HRHC he was suspected of assaulting female residents on at least two occasions and of raping another female resident, but no charges were laid.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Tompkins’ psychiatric history is set out in the Hospital Report. Although his institutional history is extensive, his psychiatric history is not. This is consistent with his current (and longstanding) diagnoses which are predominantly personality and behaviour related. Mr. Tompkins does not take any psychotropic medication and he does not experience symptoms of psychosis or mania.
Mr. Tompkins’ current diagnoses are:
a. Sexual Sadism Disorder
b. Pedophilic Disorder
c. Antisocial Personality Disorder
d. Intellectual Disability
- After the NCR finding in 1985 Mr. Tompkins was detained at Oak Ridge Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene (now Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care) until June 2020, when he was transferred to CAMH. Mr. Tompkins is currently housed in Unit 1-5, LGUD, a high support all-male general forensic rehabilitation unit. He receives DSO funding which includes 2 (two) Passport workers to assist in his care.
Evidence of Dr. Swayze
Dr. Swayze had no updates to report since the delivery of his Hospital Report. He stated that Mr. Tompkins had a variable but modestly improved clinical year. His privileges are tied to a behavioural plan, and he had a number of minor violations, mostly consisting of sexual comments and purchasing books and candies for children. His transgressions led to brief pauses in his privileges. However, in contrast to past violations, the breaches did not lead to a decrease in his pass levels or privileges. He did not engage in physical or sexual violence, and he has been compliant with the expectations of his team.
Mr. Tompkins still presents as a challenge with respect to moving forward towards community living. He is on a “consideration” list for a high staffed, high support setting. He is being well-managed through his behavioural plan and supervised to the point that there are “eyes-on” him all the time. Dr. Swayze testified the Mr. Tompkins’ current Disposition is working well. The housing that the team is looking for would replicate the care he now receives.
In answer to a question from Ms. Culp, Dr. Swayze stated that Mr. Tompkins still needs to be accompanied by staff. There is no change in Mr. Tompkins’ understanding of his illness. Notwithstanding the fact that he is regularly provided with psychoeducation, there is little change in his insight.
In answer to a question from Ms. Whillier, Dr. Swayze indicated that Mr. Tompkins is enrolled in the Alternative Living Care program (ALC) which increases his chances of obtaining housing.
In answer to a question from a panel member, Dr. Swayze stated he was hopeful that Ministry funding might soon be available for Mr. Tompkins’ housing needs.
Submissions
- The parties maintained their joint submission after hearing the evidence.
Findings
- The Board finds that Mr. Tompkins continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has been institutionalized for well over 40 years in a secure, supervised custodial, largely male setting, with limited access to potential victims and few opportunities for offending. Even within this secure environment he still exhibits problematic sexualized behaviour towards female staff, ranging from sexualized comments to crossing appropriate boundaries. Mr. Tompkins exhibits social skills deficits and has difficulties with coping; the evidence indicates that he would be at high risk of engaging in inappropriate interactions with vulnerable people.
Disposition
The necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order without change. This is also the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition available at this time. If a discharge is to be considered, it would have to be to a highly supervised all-male residence approved by the hospital.
In coming to this conclusion, the Board has considered its responsibility pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Code to make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, considering the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of Mr. Tompkins, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 9th day of October, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. C. Nelson Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board