Re: Dylan Siipola
ORB File No: 8822
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: Ms. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. L. Ramshaw Dr. C. Rose Mr. J. Goldenberg Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dylan Siipola Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Jukes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 3, 2025)
Introduction
On November 25, 2024, Mr. Dylan Siipola was found unfit to stand trial on outstanding charges of sexual assault (x3), assault, and threaten death. The court made no disposition in this matter and referred him to the Review Board for this purpose. Mr. Siipola remained out of custody on a bail release.
On September 17, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre to conduct Mr. Siipola’s initial hearing. Mr. Siipola was represented by counsel, Mr. Umberto Agostino. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Agostino confirmed that his client was not present nor expected to attend the hearing. He indicated that he had secured instructions from Mr. Siipola to represent him at the hearing. Mr. Siipola was extremely anxious and stressed about attending. Mr Siipola’s sister, Trinity Siipola, was present at the hearing in his support. Mr. Agostino requested an order pursuant to s. 672.5(10) that Mr. Siipola be permitted to be absent for his hearing. No opposition was raised to this request and the order, in the circumstances, was made.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions.
Ms. Davidson, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. Siipola is unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with terms that Mr. Siipola have no contact with the victims of the index offence and report not less than once per month.
Mr. Jukes, on behalf of the Attorney General, noted his support for the hospital position.
Mr. Agostino, on behalf of Mr. Siipola, indicated that he concurs with the hospital’s position with respect to fitness and believes that Mr. Siipola is unfit to stand trial. In the absence of obtaining clear instructions from Mr. Siipola with respect to disposition, he indicated only that he believes that the position of the hospital regarding disposition is reasonable.
Index Offence(s):
- The details of the index offence are contained in the Crown synopses as follows:
“On the 17th day of April, 2024, in the Township of Nipigon, in the District of Thunder Bay, the Nipigon OPP were dispatched to a report of a sexual assault not in progress at 165 Greenmantle Drive, The complainant, SE, called to report that she is a Community Living Housing employee and was assaulted by a resident, Dylan SIPCO. PC Borek of the Nipigon OPP attended and conducted an investigation.
PC Borek arrived to 165 Greenmantle Dr. and found that SIIPOLA was no longer present. PC Borek spoke with SE and was informed that she is a full-time employee at the location. There are 3 people that reside there including SIIPOLA. SE told PC Borek that her employment duties are similar to a personal support worker for the residents.
SE stated to PC Borek that she was sexually assaulted around 1930 hours when SIIPOLA pulled his pants down to expose his genitalia and then rubbed them on her, SE was shocked, backed away and told SIIPOLA to stop. SIIPOLA then grabbed SE's breast with his hand and again rubbed his exposed genitalia on her. There was no ejaculation and no skin contact. SIIPOLA then departed the residence.
SE provided PC Borek some brief background information on SIIPOLA including his cognitive ability and mental health status as well as a picture. SE was not injured and did not require medical attention. A sexual assault evidence kit was not applicable.
SIIPOLA was located outside 165 Greenmantle Drive attempting to return the residence. He was placed under arrest without incident, read his rights to counsel and caution. SIIPOLA was then transported to the Nipigon OPP detachment where he was held for bail.
As a result, the accused, Dylan SIIPOLA is charged with the following: CC 271 Sexual Assault (SIIPOLA, DYLAN) (E240473691) Dylan SIIPOLA, did without consent, directly assault SE in a sexual nature by, exposing his genitalia and touching SE with them while grabbing her breast.”
Background and History
Mr. Siipola is presently 33 years of age. It is reported that he has suffered from a mental disorder since 2011. He has significant cognitive limitations, is developmentally delayed, and is prone to relatively sudden episodes of deterioration during which he can become volatile. He is not capable of independent living and requires a great deal of structure. His diagnoses set out in the Hospital Report include moderate developmental delay and schizoaffective disorder by history.
At this time, he is living with his mother and being cared for by his family doctor in the community. He does not have a psychiatrist. In early 2025, Mr. Siipola was discharged from the Dual Diagnosis Clinic at St. Joseph’s Hospital. His mother supervises the medications that he takes at this time.
The hospital report sets out on the issue of fitness, in support of the position that he is unfit to stand trial, that Mr. Siipola is unable to acknowledge any understanding of the relevant issues regarding guilty pleas, parties to the judicial process, consequences of a criminal finding, or the meaning of an oath. He becomes agitated when criminal charges are mentioned to him. He has indicated that he has no criminal charges, does not have to go to court in the future and believes these have been resolved
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing was comprised of the record, being the notice of hearing and the prehearing conference reports of July 22, 2025, and August 25, 202, and the documentation evidence, made exhibits at the hearing, included:
(i) surety bail July 19, 2024
(ii) undertaking October 1, 2024
(iii) synopsis
(iv) Information
(v) Aug 6, 2024, fitness assessment report (Dr. Sheppard)
(vi) Aug 27, 2025, hospital report (Dr. Sheppard)
In addition to the documentary evidence, Dr. Sheppard provided testimony at the hearing.
Dr. Sheppard testified that he has met with Mr. Siipola on three occasions, twice in preparation of the original fitness assessment and again last month to prepare the hospital report for the purpose of this hearing. As a result, he does not know him well.
Mr. Siipola, however, does have a fairly extensive record at the hospital. The critical issues are his longstanding intellectual disability described as at least moderate. Mr. Siipola has significant cognitive impairments, developmental in nature. He was diagnosed many years ago which schizoaffective disorder, which is a psychotic illness which includes prominent mood swings. There is good evidence to substantiate that in his behaviour wherein he can exhibit mania, grandiosity, and extreme impulsivity. At other times, he is lethargic, withdrawn, and depressed, neglecting his self-care. He also suffers from extremely high anxiety. He seems easily triggered by events in his life which cause him anxiety and stress. He has a fairly significant history of sudden behaviour dysregulation and gets panicky. He can become at those times loud, intrusive, and sometimes physically aggressive. The index offences are part of this pattern. Normally, Mr. Siipola is fairly easy to manage, but at times suddenly becomes dysregulated. This has led to his past police involvement and the index charges.
Mr. Siipola had been under longtime care at the dual diagnostic clinic in Thunder Bay, but he was discharged in January 2025. He is now without psychiatric follow-up and is managed by his family physician in the community. He is on a few medications. If the Board finds Mr. Siipola to be unfit, then he will become a client, on the proposed Conditional Discharge, of the Forensic Outpatient Services. He will then be afforded psychiatric management.
Mr. Siipola has been on many medications over the years. He is on a couple now, but it seems to Dr. Sheppard that Mr. Siipola is quite sensitive to side effects and is diabetic, which might limit the medication options. One aspect of his care under Dr. Sheppard and the Forensic Outpatient Services will be for the team to explore his medication needs to determine if adjustments are indicated.
In general, Mr. Siipola is doing well. He lives with his mother. There are no plans to return him to the group home in Red Rock which was the site of the index offences. He is supported in the community on a DSO (Developmental Services Ontario) funding program with Passport workers. He may have other community-based supports of which Dr. Sheppard was not clearly aware. Mr. Siipola, with his Passport workers, has had the opportunity to attend the Special Olympics and go on outings with them. Dr. Sheppard noted that Mr. Siipola’s family does a great job with him at home, and this is probably not an easy endeavour.
It is the position of the hospital that Mr. Siipola can be managed on a Conditional Discharge. They seek conditions as were set out in his bail that he have no contact with the victims of the index offences. There is no need, in the view of the hospital, for a condition of residence to be contained in the Conditional Discharge. Mr. Siipola has no other place to live, and it is highly unlikely that he could either decide or have the ability to move from his mother’s residence. There was no history of elopement attempts when Mr. Siipola was residing in his community residence.
Dr Sheppard was asked whether he felt that a Detention Order was required in order to protect the community, with provisions for Mr. Siipola to reside at his mother’s address. Concern was raised by one of the Board members of a potential risk to the community should Mr. Siipola leave that residence. Dr Sheppard replied that Mr. Siipola lived in the group home for a number of years and there were no attempts to leave that residence or issues of him wandering off.
Dr Sheppard testified that it is the view of the hospital that a Conditional Discharge is a disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive and with the proposed conditions included adequately protects public safety.
No other evidence was called.
Final Submissions
Ms. Davidson, on behalf of the hospital submitted that the evidence before the Board supports a finding that Mr. Siipola is unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition is that of a Conditional Discharge with the conditions proposed.
Mr. Jukes, on behalf of the Crown, supported the hospital position. He noted that there is no evidence to support a concern that Mr. Siipola is likely to leave his mother’s residence, where he presently resides. He supported the position that the disposition contain a term of no contact with the three victims of the index offence: Kristy Elms, Harit Pitroda, and Sandra Elliot.
Mr. Agostino, on behalf of Mr. Siipola, maintained his initial position that Mr. Siipola is unfit to stand trial. Without clear instructions from Mr. Siipola as to disposition, he noted simply that the disposition being requested by the hospital appeared appropriate.
Analysis and Conclusion
- On the evidence before us, the Board is unanimous in finding Mr. Siipola is unfit to stand trial. This was not contested by any of the parties, but we make this finding independently on the evidence before us.
Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines “unfit to stand trial” as follows:
“Unfit to stand trial means unable, on account of mental disorder, to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and in particular unable on account of mental disorder to:
a) understand nature and object of the proceedings
b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or
c) to communicate with counsel.”
- The test for fitness was addressed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203, emphasizing that the fundamental purpose of the section 2 definition is to ensure that all accused are able to be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate in their criminal trials, concepts that are rooted in trial fairness. At paragraph 167, the Court of Appeal stated the following principles should inform all fitness assessments:
(1) There is one fitness test for all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. This test is applied contextually.
(2) The test for fitness is set out in the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.
(3) A person is unfit to stand trial if, on account of mental disorder, the person is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so.
(4) The purpose of the s. 2 fitness test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial. These touchstones inform a purposive interpretation and application of the s. 2 fitness test and do not themselves constitute a stand-alone test.
(5) The Taylor test questions are not a sufficient surrogate for assessing fitness but are helpful in providing insights into an accused’s abilities in relation to the s. 2 criteria. Applying the fitness test is more nuanced than the questions recognize.
(6) The accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings.
(7) The accused must have the ability to make decisions. This involves the ability to understand available options, the ability to select from those options, the ability to understand the basic consequences arising from those options, and the ability to intelligibly communicate to either counsel or the court the decision arrived upon.
(8) The accused need impersonate the capacity to engage in analytic thinking in the sense that the accused need not be capable of making decisions in their own best interests.
- The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Bharwani 2025 SCC 26 supported the findings of the Court of Appeal and added
par 65 fitness to stand trial test is contextual as the inquiry focuses on the decisions that form part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract. And that transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which and accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.
And further at paragraph 77
While the Criminal Code defines ‘unfit to stand trial” with reference to the inability to conduct a defence “at any stage of the proceedings,” this incapacity must be assessed holistically, recognizing that an accused’s mental state may fluctuate. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. A momentary delusion that prevents an accused from making reality-based decisions does not render the accused unfit so long as the trial judge and other courtroom participants can help the accused get back on track to meet the capacity threshold when decisions in their defence must be made. The primary consideration is always assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making decisions in their defence.
Applying the law to these the present case, we unanimously find that Mr. Siipola is unfit to stand trial. This is the position of all parties, and we make the finding independently on the evidence before us. Mr. Siipola has significant cognitive impairments, developmental in nature, and a longstanding intellectual disability described as moderate. He also suffers from a mental illness, schizoaffective disorder. He is subject to extremely high anxiety triggered by events which can lead to dysregulation in behaviour. He was unable to acknowledge any understanding of the judicial process in relation to the Taylor questions put to him in the assessment conducted by Dr. Sheppard in 2025. He had no understanding, for example, of the parties involved in the criminal proceedings, the consequences of charges, or the meaning of an oath. He believed that any criminal charges that he had had been resolved. He suffered from anxiety associated with any criminal justice involvement. He was too greatly stressed at the prospect of attending this hearing before the ORB that his absence was permitted pursuant to s. 672.5(10).
In these circumstances, it is clear that Mr. Siipola is not capable of being meaningfully present and meaningfully participating in his criminal trial. It is not a situation of transitory symptoms.
Dr. Sheppard has not yet had an opportunity to begin work with Mr. Siipola. In these circumstances, the doctor did not take the position that Mr. Siipola was permanently unfit. The treatment team will make efforts to assist Mr. Siipola to see if he is able to reach a level of fitness in the future. At this time, however, he is clearly unfit to stand trial.
With respect to disposition, the hospital is proposing a Conditional Discharge with conditions only that Mr. Siipola have no contact with the victims of index offence and report to the hospital not less than once per month. It is the unanimous view of the panel that that disposition is that which is necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive.
Mr. Siipola is currently residing with his mother at their home. She manages his medications. He fortunately has access to community support workers for activities outside the home. He is stable in the community with family that are very knowledgeable and who are strong advocates for him. They provide him with high support, and he is medication compliant. Mr. Siipola does not require hospitalization at this time.
With respect to including a housing condition, there is no evidence that Mr. Siipola would independently seek to move from his current home or have the ability to do so. He has no history of leaving his residence. It was noted in the evidence that there is also a slight possibility in the future of finding alternative living arrangements for him in supportive housing in the community.
If there were a deterioration in his mental status, Dr Sheppard’s evidence is that the Mental Health Act would be likely sufficient to have Mr. Siipola admitted to hospital. On this basis, we find that the Conditional Discharge proposed by the hospital is adequate to protect the safety of the public and meets the other factors as set out in the Criminal Code. There will be conditions that Mr. Siipola have no contact with Kristy Elms, Harit Pitroda, and Sandra Elliott and that he report to the hospital not less than once per month.
We make this order in consideration of the primary purpose of protection of the safety of the public, Mr. Siipola’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 3rd day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
C. Fromstein
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board