Re Novar W. McAnuff, 2025 CanLII 102490

Ontario Review Board

Re: Novar W. McAnuff

ORB File No: 5788

Hearing held on: Friday, August 29, 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. Prendergast Dr. M. Mamak Mr. R. Bigelow Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Novar W. McAnuff Counsel: Mr. M. Bartlett

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Weinberg

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated October 8, 2025)

Introduction

1. Novar W. McAnuff, age 52, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on three charges of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code on January 17, 2011.

2. On August 29, 2025, Mr. McAnuff appeared before the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) for his annual hearing from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (the “hospital”). The hospital, supported by Crown counsel, recommended no change to the current Disposition – a Detention Order with privileges up to and including community living as approved. Mr. McAnuff’s counsel asked for an Absolute Discharge.

3. The Board had before it a Hospital Report dated August 10, 2025, as Exhibit 1. By way of background, the Board had a Campbell letter regarding a May 5th incident that involved ingestion of cannabis and resulting decompensation. The Board also had before it Reasons regarding a Restriction of Liberty that took place between November 18, 2024, and February of 2025.

Index Offence

4. The circumstances of the index offences are summarized from the Board’s Reasons for Disposition dated April 8, 2025:

"On September 2, 2010, at 8:30 pm, the first two female victims were leaving their apartment to walk the dog. While on the street, Mr. McAnuff approached them and lunged at the dog, attempting to take it. Fearing for the safety of her friend and the dog, one of the victims swung her keys at Mr. McAnuff. He began grabbing at the woman, attempting to take her keys. After being pushed away, Mr. McAnuff began grabbing at the other woman’s shirt, causing her to scream in fear. She freed herself, and both victims fled the scene to call police.

At 8:35 pm, the other two female victims were walking on the street, approximately one block from the scene of the first incident. Mr. McAnuff was walking parallel to them on the street. He suddenly changed direction and approached the victims, grabbing the second victim around the waist. Fearing for the safety of her daughter (who had been grabbed) the other victim dropped her belongings and began to strike Mr. McAnuff with her umbrella. Mr. McAnuff then let go of the victim and grabbed the belongings that had been dropped (purse, clothing, shoes); he then fled the scene. The victims attended a nearby residence to phone police.”

Diagnoses

5. Schizophrenia Cannabis Use Disorder Cocaine Use Disorder, in remission Unspecified Personality Disorder with antisocial traits

Background

6. Mr. McAnuff is single. He is currently in hospital. Prior to arrest in 2010, he resided in a supervised boarding house. He was on ODSP and followed by a community psychiatrist. He occupied himself by panhandling.

7. Mr. McAnuff was born in Jamaica. He came to Canada at age 10. Mr. McAnuff has no contact with his family. His first hospitalization for schizophrenia was at age 17. There have been numerous hospitalizations. He has no work history. He has a lengthy history of consumption of substances, primarily cannabis.

8. He was convicted of robbery in 1989. He has had various charges arising out of mental health issues that were withdrawn by reason of his mental disorder. They include criminal harassment in 1999, possession of a weapon in 1993, criminal harassment in 1999 (peace bond), There was a 2009 conviction for assault.

9. Mr. McAnuff’s course in hospital is detailed in the Hospital Report. The picture that emerges is persistent use of cannabis, restrictions of liberty, releases into the community followed by readmissions, persistent symptoms, frequent deteriorations, incidents of aggression and violence. Mr. McAnuff’s insight is very poor.

10. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. McAnuff would be at high risk of violence on a Conditional Discharge.

11. Mr. McAnuff is incapable of consenting to treatment. In last year’s Reasons for Disposition there was a finding of no reality regarding a possible Absolute Discharge.

Evidence at Hearing

12. Dr. R. Jones, the patient’s psychiatrist since Mr. McAnuff was admitted to the secure unit in November 2024, testified. Dr. Jones reported that there were no material updates. There have been no further incidents of violence or substances since the May 5, 2025, incident. During the past week Mr. McAnuff was awarded level 6 privileges which involved hospital passes for recreational and social purposes. Since May 2025, he has been using those passes appropriately. Mr. McAnuff had reached level 6 by April, but the May incident caused that privilege to be revoked.

13. Mr. McAnuff is pleasant to staff and peers and generally is cooperative. Mr. McAnuff does not agree that he should be in hospital or under the Board. He has no appreciation of his mental disorder, the need to take medication, or its impacts. He takes the medication because he is required to. Mr. McAnuff’s Substitute Decision Maker is the Public Guardian and Trustee. Mr. McAnuff does not recognize his symptoms. When he consumes cannabis, he becomes agitated and preoccupied with religious matters.

14. At present he is at his baseline.

15. Mr. McAnuff knows he cannot use cannabis when under the Board. He says he is committed to remaining abstinent. He does not recognize the detriment cannabis causes to his mental state. He believes cannabis helps him. Access to cannabis is very limited on a secure unit. The test will be when he goes back to a general unit. While Mr. McAnuff recognizes he cannot consume on hospital grounds, he did in May. There is a low degree of confidence, given his history, that he can abstain. The longer he can abstain, the more likely it will demonstrate his commitment.

16. Mr. McAnuff has participated in lots of groups and 1:1 therapy to address relapse prevention.

17. In Dr. Jones' view, May 5 was not so long ago but hope springs eternal. If Mr. McAnuff remains abstinent, transfer to a general unit may be possible in two or three months. For the present, the hospital would like to see appropriate use of the newly reached pass level for a few months.

18. If things can continue to proceed forward in a positive manner, the hospital will look at the possibility of community placement down the line.

19. Dr. Jones endorsed the risk assessment in the Hospital Report. If released absolutely it is highly likely that Mr. McAnuff would stop his medications, return to substances, rapidly decompose, have increased psychosis and disinhibition. This would likely result in anger, episodes of agitation and violence. There is a history of frequent incidents of aggression including threats to kill, as noted at pages 5 to 7 of the Hospital Report.

20. In Dr. Jones’ view, without Board oversight, Mr. McAnuff would return to the conduct that brought him to the Board's attention. There is no community psychiatrist lined up and Mr. McAnuff has nowhere to live in the community.

21. The hospital would want to approve housing. Dr. Jones indicated that the Mental Health Act would be insufficient in Mr. McAnuff’s case to catch deterioration at early stages. It is not likely that Mr. McAnuff would agree to return voluntarily.

22. In all likelihood, if released, Mr. McAnuff would have to rely on hostels. If released, he truly requires supervised housing to ensure abstinence and to monitor medication adherence. CTOs have not been successful in past. If Mr. McAnuff were released, he would need ACT team level attention, in other words, a very high degree of forensic type intervention.

23. While there have been incidents of verbal aggression, there have been no incidents of violence under Board supervision.

24. Ultimately, Mr. McAnuff needs to show sustained abstinence over a prolonged period.

25. While Mr. McAnuff has been abstinent since May, this is probably because of being in a secure unit. As noted, the real test will be on a general unit.

26. Discussions about cannabis use with Mr. McAnuff have not been productive.

27. Mr. McAnuff has no supports in the community. He is in contact with his mother who lives in a retirement home.

28. In final submissions, Mr. Bartlett, for Mr. McAnuff, expressed that Mr. McAnuff has been making progress since May. He reminded the Board of the high threshold for significant threat, that Mr. McAnuff has not attempted to harm anyone, and that the Board should not be concerned with what is in Mr. McAnuff’s best interest but focus on the test for significant threat.

Analysis

29. Clearly, if the test concerned what was in Mr. McAnuff's best interest, an Absolute Discharge would be out of the question. But that is not the Board’s mandate. When assessing significant threat to the safety of the public, Dr. Jones was unequivocal and a review of the file supports that Mr. McAnuff, who has poor insight and no desire to stop cannabis, and a poor history of medication adherence, would fall away from treatment. Decompensation would be followed by aggression including threats or actual violence. Regrettably, the pattern is very clear. The Board recognizes that Mr. McAnuff has been under its jurisdiction for a long time. The Board wants to see Mr. McAnuff progress. Recently, he has been on a positive course. Continued abstinence will lead to a move to a general unit where his commitment regarding cannabis can be tested. Incident free use of newly restored passes will speed the process up. Mr. McAnuff’s history discloses habitual reliance on substances and falling away from treatment and medication. That pattern is so well established that the public could not be adequately protected were he to be granted an Absolute Discharge. An Absolute Discharge is a bridge too far regarding the protection of the public at this point in time.

30. A Conditional Discharge is also not a realistic possibility at present. Mr. McAnuff has nowhere to go. He has no supports medically or otherwise in the community. There is a need to approve housing. Without housing it would be impossible to monitor Mr. McAnuff. The evidence was clear Mr. McAnuff would not be adherent to a request to return to hospital in the event decompensation commenced. None of the criteria to support a Conditional Discharge are present.

31. To Mr. McAnuff’s credit, he has been on a good trajectory since early May, and we wish him well in the months ahead.

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

Mr. M.D. Segal Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board