Ontario Review Board
Re: Jean-Paul Scalabrini
ORB File No: 6362
Hearing held on: Thursday August 28, 2025
Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Mr. M. Segal
Dr. P. Prendergast
Dr. M. Mamak
Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jean-Paul Scalabrini
Counsel: Ms. A. Szigeti (by video)
The Person in Charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated October 8, 2025)
Introduction
On June 10, 2013, Jean-Paul Scalabrini was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of resisting or obstructing a peace officer, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, and robbery, all contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated July 26, 2024, ordering that his detention at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (St. Joseph`s) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge. Pending his transfer to St. Joseph’s, he is ordered detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with similar privileges.
On Thursday August 28, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to review Mr. Scalabrini’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Scalabrini was not present at the hearing but was represented by counsel, Ms. Szigeti, who advised that Mr. Scalabrini found attending hearings stressful and did not wish to attend. She further indicated that she had full instructions to proceed in his absence. Neither of the other parties objected to proceeding in Mr. Scalabrini’s absence and the hearing proceeded pursuant to section 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Scalabrini continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 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 indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Scalabrini continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order without change.
Counsel for the Attorney General advised that she would likely support the Hospital position.
Counsel for Mr. Scalabrini advised that she would not oppose the continuation of the current detention order however, she would submit that, unless the hospital undertook to advise the Board of any return to a secure unit, the current, the order should be amended to direct that, pending his transfer to St. Joseph’s, he be detained on a general unit at CAMH. She also submitted that there should be an additional term directing that St. Joseph’s and CAMH facilitate a visit by her client to St. Joseph’s as he “wants to know whether he’ll like it”.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated August 8, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. A. Arnold, a PGY6 Psychiatry Resident working under the supervision of Dr. R. Jones, Mr. Scalabrini’s treating physician.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Scalabrini 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 with the only change being the expansion of the community in term 2(d) to include all of Southern Ontario.
Index Offence
- The allegations surrounding the index offence as summarized in the Last Year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows :
on March 28, 2013, Jean Paul Scalabrini was in the woods just outside of Sudbury near in underground bunker that he had built. He approached two men and aggressively brandished a silver knife. One of the men revealed that he was carrying an air soft pistol. Mr. Scalabrini then charged at him taking the air soft pistol with force from his hands. Mr. Scalabrini wrapped his arm around the man’s throat, placing him into a headlock and choking him. Mr. Scalabrini then pressed the pistol against the man’s temple. He ordered the second male to “Come here or I’ll blow his head off and yours.” Mr. Scalabrini then pressed a knife against the first victim and demanded his possessions. He next forcefully took an iPhone4 cell phone from that victim’s pocket. Mr. Scalabrini next threw the same victim to the ground, causing the victim to strike his head against a rock. The victim sustained a gash to his head that ultimately required medical attention. Mr. Scalabrini then fled on foot.
Background Information Regarding the Accused
Mr. Scalabrini’s is 39 years of age and is one of 5 siblings. His father was employed as a welder and his family moved frequently. His parents are currently retired, and they spend their winters in Arizona or Florida and return to Canada for the summer months.
Mr. Scalabrini completed grade 12 and started an apprenticeship in pipefitting after high school but did not finish. He completed an online paralegal course subsequently. His employment history is sparse and erratic.
Substance Use History
- Mr. Scalabrini has a significant history of substance use including crack cocaine and cannabis. Early assessors questioned substance–induced psychosis versus primary psychotic disorder.
Legal History
- Mr. Scalabrini has the following criminal record.
Date & Location
Charge(s)
Disposition
2006.10.12
Edmonton, AB
Failure to Attend Court
$200 I-D 3 days
2006.10.25
Edmonton, AB
Failure to Comply with Recognizance
$100 I-D 1 day
2006.12.18
Edmonton, AB
Possession of a Scheduled Substance
Time served
2012.09.19
Sudbury, ON
Possession of Weapon for Dangerous Purpose
Conditional sentence with 6 months probation (7 days pre-sentence custody) & 3
years S.110 Weapons Prohibition
2013.06.10
Sudbury, ON
Causing a Disturbance
Criminal Harassment
Breach of Probation
Mischief
Withdrawn
1 day time served & S.109 10-year Weapons Prohibition
1 day time served concurrently
Withdrawn
- A psychosocial assessment on file from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care summarizes contacts by the Sudbury Ontario police in the months preceding the index offences as follows:
On September 13, 2012, Mr. Scalabrini confronted two males at the Sudbury bus terminal and proceeded to swing a wooden floorboard with three nails protruding. He was arrested and charged with Weapons Dangerous (see disposition date of September 19, 2012, above);
On January 3, 2013, Sudbury Police were dispatched to an apartment complex regarding a Harassment complaint. The victim advised police that she was stalked and harassed by a person identified as Scalabrini for approximately 6 months. Mr. Scalabrini allegedly wrote notes on her door frame, left her notes, and made personal comments to her. Police advised the victim to keep a journal. Police spoke to the accused and advised that he not have any further communication with the complainant. No criminal charges were laid;
On February 10, 2013, Sudbury Police received information from Mr. Scalabrini’s superintendent that Mr. Scalabrini was acting in an erratic manner. He had lived in the building about seven days and had been served an eviction notice for not paying his rent on time. The superintendent also told police that this tenant was placing notes under the doors of other tenants in the complex. The notes stated, “Your apartment is rigged; I heard strange noises”. The superintendent also reported that the tenant had placed a camera facing out from his apartment which he was told to remove; that he wanders the complex all hours of the night with his laptop in his hand; that he changed the lock on his door without telling the superintendent, and that this activity had other tenants concerned. When police spoke to Mr. Scalabrini, he exhibited paranoid behaviour, but they were satisfied there was no concern for his immediate safety. The situation would be monitored.
On February 13, 2013, Mr. Scalabrini presented to police headquarters requesting to speak to an officer. Mr. Scalabrini alleged that girls were getting raped in his building; that his neighbour across from him allegedly assaulted him two days earlier, and that this neighbour bit him in the forearm (but no visible injury noted). The officer noted that Mr. Scalabrini appeared confused, and his ideas were incomprehensible; he was tangential. Mr. Scalabrini did show the officer the video of his alleged assault as he indicated he wears video capable glasses and transfers them to a thumb drive. The officer observed some interactions between the complainant and another individual. The officer also observed that Mr. Scalabrini was holding a large hunting style knife in his right hand in the video (he advised he was using it for his safety and no threats were observed). Police attended the apartment complex and spoke to the other individual involved. They were unable to determine that an assault had taken place. A report was submitted for information purposes;
On February 19, 2013, the director of the YMCA called police about an “out of control” male who was threatening the director and members in the lobby area and refusing to leave. The male was identified as Mr. Scalabrini. He had been given a day pass to try out the facilities. He almost immediately became threatening and intimidating to other people, going into their spaces when they were working out and making others uncomfortable. When members reported this to the director, Mr. Scalabrini began swearing, arguing and yelling (“crack whores” and “prostitutes”). His posture was aggressive; he flipped over a display table and spat on the floor. This sequence of events was videotaped. He left before police arrived. A summons for Cause a Disturbance was issued.
Psychiatric History
- Mr. Scalabrini was first diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 19. His first admission to hospital with respect to mental health related issues was in 2007. Subsequently he had numerous admissions to hospital often being brought to hospital by police presenting as paranoid, angry, verbally abusive, responding to auditory hallucinations and at times demonstrating sexual preoccupation. On a number of occasions chemical and/or physical restraints were required to protect Mr. Scalabrini as well as staff and the public. A detailed list of these hospitalizations is contained at pages 4–6 of the Hospital Report.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Scalabrini’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.
Evidence of Dr. Arnold
- Dr. Arnold indicated that:
She had been involved in Mr. Scalabrini`s care since early July 2025, had co-authored the Hospital Report and adopted its contents. By way of updates she noted that Mr. Scalabrini was now number one on the waiting list for transfer to St. Joseph’s and that he had been moved from a secure to a general unit two days prior to the hearing.
Mr. Scalabrini continues to believe that there is a treatment impasse at the Hospital and that a move to a new hospital where he will start with a clean slate and a new team is necessary.
Overall Mr. Scalabrini had a fairly positive year. Although there had been instances of verbal aggression summarized at page 42 of the Hospital Report, there was only one Code White over the year. Urine drug screens were all negative, although dilute samples were provided at times.
It was the treatment team’s recommendation that detention order continue to indicate detention at the Forensic Service largely due to the number of prior returns to secure units from general units.
Mr. Scalabrini currently had privileges of indirectly supervised hospital and grounds access as well as accompanied community access which he had used regularly without incident.
The goals for the upcoming year, should he remain at the Hospital, would be for Mr. Scalabrini to continue on his current trajectory. The next step would be indirectly supervised access to the community and the treatment team had begun discussions with him with respect to activities in the community which may be appropriate for him.
The assessment of risk contained at page 46 of the Hospital report remains accurate.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Arnold indicated that the team began to discuss a transfer to a general unit in April and that the decision to effect the transfer was made on 5 August with the actual transfer taking place on August 26. Due to the transfer Mr. Scalabrini`s care would be transferred to another psychiatrist, but she was unable to indicate who that would be.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Scalabrini, Dr. Arnold indicated that the Hospital had inquired of St. Joseph’s whether they would be prepared to have Mr. Scalabrini attend the hospital for a tour and were advised that it would not be possible. She was asked whether such a tour would be helpful to Mr. Scalabrini, and she indicated that she was unable to answer the question.
Final Submissions of the Parties
- All parties maintained their initial positions at the conclusion of the hearing. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that Hospital would fulfil its Criminal Code obligations to advise the Board of any restrictions of liberty as defined in the jurisprudence but an undertaking such as that requested by counsel for Mr. Scalabrini was neither necessary nor appropriate.
Analysis and Conclusion, significant threat
- Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Scalabrini continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has a long-standing diagnosis of a major mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder. He also has a long history, both in hospital and in the community, of aggressive behaviour including possession of weapons both while exhibiting psychotic symptoms as well as in the absence of psychotic symptoms. The Board finds that the evidence clearly supports the Clinical Assessment of Risk/Re-Offence Scenario set out in the Hospital report which states:
Mr. Scalabrini’s index offence was violent in nature. Additionally, although there has not been any incidence of physical violence since that time, he has made threats of physical violence, engaged in sexual impropriety, and engaged in multiple episodes of significant property damage and aggression, one which necessitated Toronto Police Service involvement in 2024. These episodes of property destruction occurred in the absence of psychotic symptoms and rather reflect his underlying personality structure and poor coping skills. There has been instability in his mental state in hospital with symptoms of psychosis in the context of cannabis use and overconsumption of caffeine with paranoia, heightened irritability, and disinhibition further heightening his risk of re-offence.
If Mr. Scalabrini is to reoffend at CAMH, it would most likely occur following substance use and/or mental decompensation stemming from the same. Aggression that is unpredictable and in the absence of substance use or psychotic symptoms remains a risk, though this risk has decreased over the recent reporting year in the context of management on a secure unit, improved anger management skills, and improvements in insight related to the negative effects of substance use on his trajectory.
Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The Board also finds that the evidence supports a detention order disposition which was not contested at the hearing. Although Mr. Scalabrini’s risk has decreased somewhat over the reporting year with improvement in anger management skills as well as increased insight into the negative effect of substance use, as noted above he has a long history of noncompliance with medication and an equally lengthy history of substance use aggravating his psychotic symptoms. His urine drug screens over the reporting year have all been negative for substance use and he has been compliant with medication. However, that was in the context of placement on a secure forensic unit with a high level of supervision and limited access to the community. Given his history of nonadherence and substance use, he requires careful supervision to ensure that he remains adherent to medication and substance free. Therefore, the hospital requires the authority to approve accommodation. Accordingly, a conditional discharge would not be sufficient to manage risk.
Counsel for Mr. Scalabrini indicated that she would not oppose an order of detention at the Forensic Service of CAMH if the Hospital made an undertaking that it would report any transfer back to a secure unit as a restriction of liberty pursuant to section 672.56(2) . However, should the hospital not be prepared to make such an undertaking, it was her submission that placement on a general forensic unit should be directed. The Board finds that there is no need for the Board to direct that the Hospital comply with the Criminal Code. The Hospital is certainly aware of its responsibilities under the Code, and should there be a failure to fulfil those responsibilities, Mr. Scalabrini has remedies available to him.
In the circumstances here, given Mr. Scalabrini’s history of return to secure units from general units and his extremely recent movement to a general unit, the Board is of the view that the current order directing detention at the Forensic Service while he continues to reside at CAMH is appropriate. We also note that this is consistent with the requirements of the current order with respect to his placement at St. Joseph’s.
Counsel for Mr. Scalabrini also submitted that the Board should direct that both St. Joseph’s and CAMH facilitate a visit by her client to St. Joseph’s as he “wants to know how he’ll like it”. She advised that it was her understanding that St. Joseph’s took the position that a visit to the hospital by her client would raise privacy issues, to which she responded that her client had already been ordered to be detained at St. Joseph’s and that, therefore, there really were no privacy issues. The Board disagrees with counsel’s submission with respect to privacy issues. Although Mr. Scalabrini has been ordered by the Board to be detained at St. Joseph’s, that order has not yet been implemented, and he remains a patient at CAMH.
The Criminal Code directs the Board to make dispositions taking into account the safety of the public, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused in society and other needs of the accused. It is difficult to see how a direction to facilitate a visit to another hospital fits within those goals. We also note that although the views of an accused person under the jurisdiction of the board are a factor to be considered with respect to making orders, it is by no means the most significant factor. For example, if Mr. Scalabrini were to visit St. Joseph’s and decide he did not “like it”, that in and of itself would certainly not justify a reconsideration of the current transfer order. The Board has significant concerns with respect to its jurisdiction to make the requested order as well as the appropriateness of the order. Accordingly, we do not make the requested order.
There was some discussion by counsel with respect to the possibility of creating a video tour of St. Joseph’s and although the Board certainly has no authority to direct the creation of such a video, it is something that the hospital may wish to consider as a way of introducing new arrivals or individuals may be on waiting lists for transfer to the hospital and its policies.
DATED this 8^th^ day of October, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. R. Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board