Austin R. McParland (Re), 2025 CanLII 102492

Re: Austin R. McParland

ORB File No: 8766

Hearing held on: September 16, 2025

Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Hospital

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: C. Fromstein

Members: Mr. J. Goldenberg Dr. L Ramshaw Dr. J.C. Rose Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Jamie Silen Counsel: Mr. U Augustino

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

1. On April 15, 2025, Austin McParland was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on one charge of dangerous driving, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time of the finding of NCR, the Honourable Court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”).

2. On September 16, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at Thunder Bay Regional Hospital (the “Hospital” “TBRH”) to conduct Mr. McParland’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. McParland was present for the hearing and was represented by his counsel. The following documents were entered as Exhibits for the hearing:

3. Disposition Hearing Outcome

4. Agreed Statement of Fact

5. Information

6. Undertaking, dated March 2023

7. Assessment Order

8. Judicial Endorsement

9. NCR Assessment Report dated January 22, 2025

10. Trial Transcript, dated April 15, 2025

11. Hospital Report, dated August 27, 2025

12. The issues to be determined by the Board were whether Mr. McParland 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.

13. At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Davidson, representing the Hospital, submitted that Mr. McParland continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The Hospital submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order to the Secure Forensic Unit at TBRH, with terms and conditions outlined on page 27 of the Hospital Report (Exhibit 9).

14. Mr. Jukes, counsel for the Attorney General, supported the Hospital’s position.

15. Mr. Agustino, counsel for Mr. McParland, asked the Board to consider whether a Conditional Discharge, with the conditions outlined by the hospital, could effectively manage Mr. McParland’s risk to the public.

16. For the Reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. McParland poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order with permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation, along with other terms and conditions which shall be detailed in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these reasons, is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Index Offences

8. The circumstances of the index offence are summarized from the Agreed Statement of Fact as follows:

In the afternoon of March 11, 2023, police responded to several 911 calls regarding a silver sedan travelling at high rates of speed through the city. The information provided was that the vehicle was, at times, travelling in excess of 160 km/h, driving into oncoming traffic, and showing no regard for other drivers. When the police arrived at the scene, they observed the silver sedan parked in a live lane of traffic. Police blocked the vehicle from moving forward by parking in front of it. When the responding officers approached the car, they observed a male driver in the driver’s seat, who was later identified as Mr. McParland. The police officer requested that Mr. McParland put his driver’s window down. Mr. McParland refused and began citing religious scripture. He had a nail file and nail clippers, and, at one point, used these items to attempt to carve a star inside of a circle in the palm of his hand.

Several police units attended the scene to assist with traffic control and boxing in the vehicle. A Crisis Worker, with prior knowledge of Mr. McParland, was also present. The Crisis Worker spoke to Mr. McParland for approximately one hour before he agreed to exit the vehicle, without incident. Mr. McParland was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and taken into custody for dangerous driving and stunt driving. He was subsequently taken to Thunder Bay Regional Hospital for a psychiatric assessment and was admitted under the Mental Health Act.

Background

9. The Hospital Report sets out the details of Mr. McParland’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history. Briefly summarized, Mr. McParland was born and raised in Thunder Bay, ON. He was delayed in one developmental milestone but caught up to same-aged peers after intervention. Mr. McParland witnessed substance use in the family home and experienced a traumatic event in his childhood.

10. Mr. McPlarnd was identified as having a hearing and vision impairment at the age of 11. He experienced social challenges throughout his early years. It is noted that he also had difficulties with aggression and had become physical with other children.

11. Mr. McParland did well academically. He completed High School and went on to complete a college Welding Program. He has held stable employment in his adulthood in various industries, including fast food, mining, welding, housekeeping, and security positions.

Criminal History

12. Mr. McParland has no criminal record before the index offences.

Psychiatric History

13. Mr. McParland began experiencing mental health symptoms around the age of 15, after experimenting with a psychedelic drug. Predominant symptoms at the time included difficulties managing emotions and depressed mood.

14. His first formal contact with the psychiatric system was at the age of 19, after being brought to the hospital by police due to concerns about suicide ideation. Between September 2015 and July 2022, Mr. McParland had five hospital admissions, three of which involved involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act. Symptoms that precipitated admissions included suicide ideation (with intent and planning), depressed mood, and, in some instances, auditory hallucinations instructing him to harm himself or take his own life.

15. In December 2022, Mr. McParland was prescribed a stimulant medication, Vyvanse. His mental health deteriorated shortly thereafter. His family observed increased agitation and delusional and paranoid thinking. On February 9, 2023, he was brought to the hospital by police, presenting with symptoms of psychosis in the context of the unexpected death of his girlfriend. He was admitted under the Mental Health Act. Mr. McParland was discharged from the hospital on February 23, 2023, and the index offences took place approximately two weeks later.

16. On March 11, 2023, after his arrest for the index offence, Mr. McParland was transported to the hospital by police and re-admitted. Since that time, he has received psychiatric follow-up as an outpatient through the TBRHSC and First Place Clinic. In the past two years, he has only required one psychiatric admission due to significant depression and auditory symptoms.

17. At the time of the hearing, Mr. McParland’s diagnosis was bipolar disorder, type 1.

Evidence at the hearing

18. In addition to the Hospital Report, which was made an exhibit at this hearing, the Board heard oral evidence from Mr. McParland’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Leinonen.

19. Dr. Leinonen testified that there are no clinical updates since the Hospital Report was written. Mr. McParland was described as stable, doing well, and living in the community.

20. Despite this recent clinical stability, Dr. Leinonen opined that Ms. McParland continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. He drew the Board’s attention to the HCR-20 V3 results, as outlined on pages 26 to 27 of the Hospital Report. Although many of the current clinical risk factors are well managed, Dr. Leinonen highlighted the presence of risk management factors, including a lack of personal support and deficits in coping. He also noted that the re-emergence of clinical risk factors is highly relevant to risk.

21. The doctor outlined that Mr. McParland presents with a history of disengagement from care, including stopping his psychotropic medications without medical supervision. Both factors have led to decompensation and lengthy hospital admissions.

22. Dr. Leinonen testified that these past patterns highlight the need for a detention order at this stage of Mr. McParland’s recovery. Based on the doctor’s review of the clinical record, the Mental Health Act has not been sufficient to maintain Mr. McParland’s stability, particularly in the month before the index offence. Given this, Dr. Leinonen noted the need for the Hospital to re-admit Mr. McParland expeditiously in the event of a decompensation. Additionally, the detention order would ensure that Mr. McParland remains in the hospital long enough for stabilization and a safe transition back to community living.

23. When asked about readmission to the hospital in the context of a deterioration of symptoms, Dr. Leinonen stated that there may be challenges with voluntary admission. Clinical records indicate that Mr. McParland loses insight into his diagnosis when he becomes unwell. The doctor highlighted the February 2023 hospital admission, which occurred immediately before the index offences. At that time, Mr. McParland did not recognize that he was unwell and was requesting discharge. The doctor also noted that many of Mr. McParland’s past admissions have been in the context of the Mental Health Act.

24. In response to questions, Dr. Leinonen credited Mr. McParland for having some understanding of his own risk. He understands the importance of stability in his mental health, staying on his medications, and participating in psychotherapy. The doctor believes that Mr. McParland is aware of some risk factors for decompensation. He noted that Mr. McParland had not provided much information about why he had fallen away from services in the past, other than to say that the services were not working. Given this, Dr. Leinonen noted it will be important for the treatment team to monitor Mr. McParland’s engagement.

25. Dr. Leinonen agreed that decompensation could have a bearing on Mr. McParland’s ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. The doctor noted that, although not necessarily violent in nature, Mr. McParland’s driving behaviour at the time of the index offences was a significant risk to the public and could have resulted in serious harm. This is something the doctor would consider if Mr. McParland were to decompensate.

26. With respect to a conditional discharge, Dr. Leinonen reiterated that the community supervision challenges in Mr. McParland’s history are concerning. Leading up to the index offences, Mr. McParland’s treatment team had difficulties maintaining his hospital admission and ensuring appropriate stability. Dr. Leinonen noted that Mr. McParland could progress to a conditional discharge, but this depends greatly on how he works with the team and his pattern of engagement.

27. If the Board orders a conditional discharge, Dr. Leinonen stated that the Hospital would not oppose the inclusion of a residency and consent to take treatment clause.

28. In response to questions from the panel, the doctor noted that the treatment team plans to explore Mr. McParland’s past use of cannabis in more detail, including its role in the index offence. He said that Mr. McParland’s outpatient care will focus on diagnostic clarification to evaluate the presence of potential co-morbid conditions. The treatment team may also consider referring him to a psychologist for individual therapy. All these assessments can take place in the community, if Mr. McParland remains clinically stable.

29. No further evidence was called.

Final Submissions of the Parties

30. At the end of the hearing, the Hospital maintained its initial position. Ms. Davidson highlighted that the records reflect that the Mental Health Act was not sufficient to mitigate Mr. McParland’s risk at the time of the index offences.

31. Mr. Jukes continued to support the Hospital’s position. He highlighted that it is still early on in Mr. McParland’s recovery. He drew the Board’s attention to pages 12 to 16 of the Hospital Report, which outlines how Mr. McParland’s mental health is affected by stressors. He opined that a conditional discharge is insufficient to manage the risk to the public. He noted that three of Mr. McParland’s past hospital admissions needed police intervention and four required the Mental Health Act.

32. Mr. Augustino submitted that Mr. McParland’s risk could be managed on a conditional discharge. Mr. McParland has taken his medication as prescribed and has refrained from illicit substance use. Mr. Augustino emphasized that Mr. McParland was gainfully employed at the time of the hearing and living independently with his new intimate partner. Mr. Augustino clarified that past police involvement in hospital admissions was the result of loved ones calling the police with concerns. He submitted that this is evidence of the strong social support that Mr. McParland has in the community. Lastly, he confirmed that, under a conditional discharge, Mr. McParland agrees with the inclusion of a residency and consents to a treatment clause as outlined in s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Analysis and Conclusions:

33. 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. McParland 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.

34. Based on the evidence, the Board unanimously finds that the test for significant threat has been met. We accept Dr. Leinonen’s evidence that Mr. McParland continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report in arriving at its independent conclusion.

35. Mr. McParland lives with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. On the day of the index offence, Mr. McParland’s driving behaviour placed himself and the public at risk of serious harm. To his credit, Mr. McParland has been compliant with his medications, engaged in private-pay psychotherapy, and has recently secured employment. His history of disengagement from psychiatric services and medication non-compliance is of concern to the Board. Prior mental health decompensations have taken place following significant interpersonal stressors. The evidence before us suggests a need for diagnostic clarification, as well as treatment for risk factors, including the development of coping skills. We agree that, absent the oversight of a disposition, Mr. McParland would fall away from mental health care, placing him at risk of decompensation, and behaviour similar to the index offence.

36. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. McParland 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. McParland’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. McParland provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.

37. The panel considered whether Mr. McParland’s risk could be managed under a conditional discharge. We find that a conditional discharge is not suitable at this juncture. We note that Mr. McParland would consent to a residency clause and a consent to take treatment clause. We do not find that these conditions are sufficient to mitigate risk. Although the Mental Health Act assisted with a rapid admission to hospital in the month before the offences, it did not help with maintaining Mr. McParland in hospital until his stabilization was optimized. This, coupled with the history of falling away from care, indicates that the Hospital requires the authority of a Warrant of Committal to ensure that Mr. McParland is adequately supported in the event of a decompensation.

38. Accordingly, considering public safety, which is paramount, as well as McParland’s mental health, his reintegration into the community, and his other needs, we find that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year, and so order. This disposition shall include the following conditions:

39. To live in the community in approved accommodation;

40. Abstention from substances and the requirement to submit to random screens for substances;

41. When living in the community, report to the person in charge not less than every two weeks.

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