Re: Jamie Silen
ORB File No: 8481
Hearing held on: September 16, 2025
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Hospital
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: C. Fromstein
Dr. L Ramshaw
Dr. J.C. Rose
Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jamie Silen
Counsel: Mr. G. Labine
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Jukes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 7, 2025)
Introduction
On January 24, 2024, Jamie Silen was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on charges of forcible confinement, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of weapon for dangerous purposes, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Silen is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition dated September 25, 2024, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit at Thunder Bay Regional Hospital Health Sciences Centre (“TBRH” and “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community of Thunder Bay in accommodations approved by the hospital.
On September 16, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at TBRH to conduct an initial in-person hearing to make a disposition, pursuant to section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. All parties appeared in person. The issues to be determined by the Board were whether Mr. Silen constitutes a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.54 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 section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Davidson, representative for the Hospital, submitted that Mr. Silen continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Hospital submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order to the Secure Forensic Unit at TBRH, with one change. The Hospital requested that Mr. Silen’s community living term be amended to permit him to reside anywhere in Northwestern Ontario.
Both Mr. Jukes, counsel for the Attorney General, and Mr. Labine, counsel for Mr. Silen endorsed the Hospital’s position.
For the Reasons that follow, the panel found that the statutory threshold for significant threat is met. The panel found that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order with the amendment to the community living provision to include residence anywhere in Northwestern Ontario.
Index Offences
- The Hospital Report of August 26, 2025, was filed as an exhibit in today’s hearing. A summary of the index offence described therein was provided in the recent reasons for disposition as follows:
“The circumstances giving rise to the index offence are summarized from the Agreed Statement of Facts. On 17 May 2024, Thunder Bay Provincial Police responded to a 911 call regarding an incident of intimate partner violence at Mr. Silen’s residence, where he lived with his partner (JS), and his three daughters. The 911 call was placed by one of Mr. Silen’s daughters after they were awoken by their mother repeatedly yelling out to them to run and leave the residence. As they were fleeing the residence, one of his daughters observed him standing over their mother lying in bed, holding a machete. Blood was seen on the sheets.
Upon arrival at the residence, police observed a light on in the home, but no activity. They attempted to call the residence multiple times, but no one picked up the phone. Statements were taken from Mr. Silen’s daughters, and they advised police that their father was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and had drunk a whole bottle of vodka a couple days before the incident, which was atypical for him.
Police entered the residence after obtaining information about the layout of the home. Upon entry, the police heard a female voice asking for help. Mr. Silen was observed on a couch with blood on his face, with JS sitting nearby. Police instructed Mr. Silen to put his hands up and he did not comply. Mr. Silen then started to move towards police, and they discharged their Controlled Energy Weapon to gain control. In total, two discharges were needed to gain Mr. Silen’s compliance.
Police observed blood throughout the residence, as well several weapons throughout the home. A machete was found on the kitchen floor, a hatchet on the master bed, and a baseball bat on the living room floor. His partner was provided emergency medical care and transported to Thunder Bay Regional Hospital. Following his arrest, Mr. Silen was also taken to hospital for assessment, where he was admitted under the Mental Health Act.
Mr. Silen’s partner, the victim of the offence, provided a statement to police. Briefly, she noted that their relationship had been struggling and she had wanted to leave him. She noted that Mr. Silen was becoming more possessive and has starting drinking and smoking cannabis. On the night of the index offence, she awoke to the lights being turned on and Mr. Silen coming at her with a baseball bat. When he began to hit her, she reached for the machete, which was near her bed in her hiking backpack. A struggled ensued and JS managed to gain control of the baseball bat and axe then ran out of the bedroom. As she ran towards the living room, Mr. Silen wrestled her to the ground. He was actively trying to get access to bat and axe while repeating, “I’m going to kill you”. JS attempted to negotiate with Mr. Silen and remind him of his good qualities, to no avail. Mr. Silen had restrained her by sitting on her and JS continued to try to free herself, while fearing for her life. During this period, Mr. Silen had the butt of the bat pressed against JS’s throat and he bit her nose. JS was able move and push Mr. Silen off her. Both parties fought to gain control of the axe, until Mr. Silen stated that he would let go if she let go. The axe flung into the kitchen when they both let go. Mr. Silen and JS continued to fight over the baseball bat and JS continued to defend herself by striking Mr. Silen in the genital area. At this point, police arrived and entered the residence.”
Background
The Hospital Report contains considerable information with respect to Mr. Silen’s personal, educational, medical, and psychiatric background and should be referred to for details.
Mr. Silen was born and raised in Thunder Bay, in an intact family. He completed high school and went on to obtain a college degree in Aircraft Maintenance. Mr. Silen maintained gainful employment for much of his adulthood. However, he required some workplace accommodation for his mental health. Mr. Silen was employed full-time when he was arrested for the index offences.
Mr. Silen’s former wife is the victim of the index offences. The couple was married for twenty-four years before the offences, with no periods of separation. There is no suggestion of prior instances of intimate partner violence.
Mr. Silen’s first experience with substance use was in adolescence, which primarily involved alcohol and gas inhalation. Mr. Silen reported a significant period of alcohol use, which ended in 2019. Of note, Mr. Silen’s use of alcohol was increasing prior to the index offences.
Mr. Silen has a long history of psychiatric illness beginning in his early 20s. He did not come to the attention of psychiatric services until 2005. Between February 2005 and February 2021, Mr. Silen experienced ten hospital admissions, six of which required certification under the Mental Health Act. His history of involvement with psychiatric services includes recurrent challenges with non-compliance with recommended medications, one attempted elopement from hospital, and fluctuations in insight when unwell. Hospital admissions were related to active symptoms of psychosis and, in some cases, an increase in suicidal and homicidal ideation.
Common symptomology across mental health relapses included auditory hallucinations, sometimes with a religious context, as well as suicidal and homicidal ideation. Of note, some past episodes have included command hallucinations that instructed Mr. Silen to harm himself and his wife.
At the time of the index offences, Mr. Silen was being followed by an Assertive Community Treatment (“ACT”) Team on an outpatient basis. In May 2023, Mr. Silen was seen by the ACT team, two weeks before the offences. He was described as presenting with no symptoms of psychosis. Mr. Silen did not endorse any active symptoms but did make statements opposing his medication regimen.
Shortly thereafter, by Mid-May, despite receiving his injectable Abilify, his wife raised concerns that Mr. Silen was not doing well. He exhibited increased agitation, alcohol use, and was swearing more than usual.
Subsequently, Mr. Silen reported that at some point he had also discontinued taking Seroquel medication, and that two or three days before his arrest for the index offences, he had experienced racing and bizarre thoughts and reported having an ‘inner voice’ separate from him that typically says nice things but had more recently become more critical. The index offences took place on May 17th.
Mr. Silen has no criminal record before the index offences.
Course since NCR finding
At Mr. Silen’s initial hearing in May 2024, Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Silen has progressed well since his admission to the Secure Forensic Unit. Mr. Silen was described as capable of making his own treatment decisions. He understood his diagnosis of schizophrenia and the associated symptoms. Although he continued to have residual auditory symptoms, they were not commanding in nature, and he had been free of behavioural issues.
Mr. Silen was noted to be close to the point where the Hospital could manage him suitably in the community. At the time of his initial hearing, Mr. Silen had not yet exercised any indirectly supervised community privileges, and the hospital planned to gradually transition Mr. Silen through these privileges to the point where he could be suitable for community living. It was intended that, before a discharge to community living, Mr. Silen’s direct and indirect privileges would be maximized.
At the initial hearing, the majority of the then Board panel concluded that, given Mr. Silen’s long history of symptoms and difficulties with compliance and that he had not yet fully exercised his privileges, it was premature to add a community living term to his disposition as requested by the hospital and agreed to by Mr. Silen’s counsel.
In July 2024, the Hospital requested an early hearing pursuant to section 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code, with the intention of requesting an amendment to the disposition to include the community living privilege. An early hearing was convened on September 4, 2024.
At the early hearing, Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Silen had been fully compliant with his disposition and medications, willing to engage with his treatment team and with programs, had benefitted from psychotherapy, and had maximized the use of his existing privileges without any issues.
Mr. Silen’s former wife, and victim of the index offences, gave evidence at the hearing. Given past patterns, she expressed concerns that Mr. Silen’s “good behaviour” might only last as long as it takes for Mr. Silen to get himself out of the hospital.
The panel unanimously concluded that the additional privilege added to the disposition to live in the community in an accommodation approved by the person in charge was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and restrictive disposition for Mr. Silen at the time of the early hearing.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Silen’s diagnosis at the time of the current hearing was schizophrenia.
Evidence at the hearing
In addition to the Hospital Report, which was made an exhibit at this hearing, the Board heard oral evidence from Mr. Silen’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Sheppard.
Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Silen has had a positive year. He is clinically stable on a medication regimen that involves both oral and injectable medications, which he has been adhering to without difficulty. There have been no signs of active psychosis, and Mr. Silen demonstrates good insight into his illness and risk.
Mr. Silen transitioned to Andras Court in the fall of 2024, which provides 24/7 supervision of residents. Mr. Silen has engaged well with the outpatient team. He sees his case manager regularly, attends both individual and group psychotherapy sessions, and meets with Dr. Sheppard monthly.
Dr. Sheppard noted that Mr. Silen no longer requires the level of supervision he is receiving. He is capable of independently living and has expressed a desire to transition to independent accommodations in Lappe, a community approximately 20 km from Thunder Bay, where he has family. In response to questions, Dr. Sheppard outlined that, following this transition, Mr. Silen would continue to see his case manager, psychologist, and Dr. Sheppard. Initially, the team would ensure at least two to three contacts per week to monitor the transition. Dr. Sheppard also noted that the family could help with monitoring Mr. Silen’s mental status, as they have in the past. However, the hospital has not directly consulted with family members on this matter.
Despite Mr. Silen’s positive trajectory, Dr. Sheppard testified that Mr. Silen continues to represent a risk to the safety of the public. He highlighted Mr. Silen’s diagnosis of schizophrenia, his pattern of past relapses, and the presence of command hallucinations with violent themes when he is unwell. Mr. Silen has been living in the community for under a year, and historical concerns about medication compliance and insight remain relevant. Although Mr. Silen is assessed as ready for independent living, there is an ongoing need for forensic supervision as he transitions to this stage.
Dr. Sheppard testified that a detention order remains necessary and appropriate, as the Hospital requires the authority to approve Mr. Silen’s housing. He cited the need to approve a range of housing options in case there are any issues with the plan for independent living. A detention order would also allow rapid readmission to the hospital, if clinically indicated.
Dr. Sheppard was asked whether the disposition should include a condition that Mr. Silen remain a certain distance from the victims. Dr. Sheppard noted that the Hospital would not oppose this. Mr. Silen is unaware of the current whereabouts of the listed individuals. To his knowledge, there is no evidence that Mr. Silen has breached any of the terms of his current disposition.
In response to questions, Dr. Sheppard noted that Mr. Silen had recently been discharged from ACT services, as it was deemed a duplication of services. The team intends to re-refer Mr. Silen when he is closer to an absolute discharge and Lappe falls within their catchment area.
No further evidence was called.
Final Submissions of the Parties
At the end of the hearing, the Hospital maintained its initial position.
Mr. Jukes supported the Hospital's position. He asked the Board to consider adding a clause stating that Mr. Silen not attend within 100 meters of the named victims.
Mr. Labine also joined the Hospital’s position and highlighted that Mr. Silen has honoured all legal obligations related to the no-contact terms.
Analysis and Conclusions
Ongoing significant risk to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature. In determining whether Mr. Silen continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence in relation to s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Based on the evidence, the Board unanimously finds that the test for significant threat has been met. We considered the joint position of the parties and accept Dr. Sheppard’s uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Silen continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report in arriving at its independent conclusion.
Mr. Silen lives with schizophrenia, the symptoms of which are currently well managed by his medication regimen. The index offence, which is serious in nature, took place in the context of active symptoms of psychosis and non-compliance with medications, while under the supervision of an ACT team. Mr. Silen’s recovery has gone well thus far, and the Board has noted improvements in his insight, engagement with the team, and his medication compliance. However, Mr. Silen continues to be early in his recovery journey, and his ability to maintain his progress has not been tested in the context of independent living.
The evidence highlights that, historically, Mr. Silen has experienced difficulties with long-term compliance with medications and treatment recommendations. There exists a pattern of requesting that medications be reduced, medication non-compliance, and not communicating openly with his treatment providers about his symptoms and medication compliance. In the past, this has precipitated relapses of his symptoms, which have led to multiple hospital admissions, the majority of which occurred under the Mental Health Act. Active symptoms of his illness have been associated with an increase in violent ideation. We are also mindful that Mr. Silen’s offence took place while he was under the care of an ACT team.
We accept that, absent an ORB disposition, Mr. Silen would likely become non-compliant with medication, which would lead to decompensation and a re-emergence of violent ideation and behaviours like those seen at the time of the index offence.
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Silen continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. It’s paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public, while also considering Mr. Rusin’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Silen provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
The panel agrees with the submission of all the parties that the current detention order, with an amendment to broaden the scope of Mr. Silen’s community living to include Northwestern Ontario, remains the necessary and appropriate disposition and the least restrictive option available to manage Mr. Silen’s risk to the safety of the public. The panel considered Mr. Jukes’ request for the addition of a clause requiring Mr. Silen not to attend within 100 meters of the named victims. The panel deemed this condition unnecessary, given the existing no-contact clauses.
The panel considered whether Mr. Silen’s risk could be managed under a conditional discharge. We accept Dr. Sheppard’s expert opinion that a detention order continues to be necessary and appropriate. Mr. Silen has demonstrated numerous strengths over the past year, including taking his medication, adhering to his ORB disposition, and successfully transitioning to supervised accommodation. The panel is mindful of the challenges Mr. Silen has faced with compliance in the past. Given these challenges, we agree that the hospital needs to approve Mr. Silen’s accommodation, as well as the ability to re-admit him to the hospital if necessary.
Accordingly, considering public safety, which is paramount, as well as Mr. Silen’s mental health, his reintegration into the community, and his other needs, we agree that a continuation of the current detention order, with the change noted above, is the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year, and so order.
The panel wishes to congratulate Mr. Silen on the progress he has made, and we are hopeful that he will continue along this positive trajectory.
DATED this 7th day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
J. Christine Rose, Ph.D., C.Psych.
Psychologist Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board