Ontario Review Board
Re: Robert Davidson
ORB File No: 8710
Hearing held on: Thursday, August 28, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Mr. A. Herscovitch Dr. S. Lessard Dr. R. Cormier Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Robert Davidson Counsel: Ms. M. McMahon
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 16, 2025)
Introduction
On January 24, 2025, Robert Davidson appeared in court on a charge of wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to an animal, namely a Canada Goose gosling, contrary to section 445.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Court was presented with psychiatric evidence establishing that Mr. Davidson suffers from a frontotemporal dementia, a major neurocognitive disorder, and that as a result he would be unable to meaningfully communicate with counsel and the Court. On that basis, Mr. Davidson was found unfit to stand trial. The Court chose to not render a disposition and remitted the matter to the Ontario Review Board (hereinafter “ORB” or “the Board”) for the Board to render its own disposition.
On August 28, 2025, the Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC” or “the Hospital”) to hear evidence and render a disposition. Mr. Davidson, who is out of custody, attended in person and was represented by counsel Ms. McMahon. Mr. Davidson’s wife, Floreda Davidson, and his daughter, Robin McFarlane were present as well.
At the request of Ms. McMahon, an Order was made appointing her as counsel.
The following documents were filed as exhibits at the hearing:
o Endorsed Information
o Appointment of Counsel Order under section 672.24 of the Criminal Code
o Mr. Davidson’s Undertaking
o Assessment Order
o Charge Sheet and Synopsis
o CPIC Check (No criminal record or previous charges)
o Fitness Assessment Report by Dr. A. Sandhu dated December 16, 2024
o Transcript of fitness hearing dated January 24, 2025
o Hospital Report by Dr. A. Sandhu dated August 15, 2025
- The issues to be considered by the Board are whether Mr. Davidson presents a significant risk to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition.
Initial Positions of the Parties
- The Hospital and the Attorney General took the position that Mr. Davidson remains unfit to stand trial. Their position as to disposition was a conditional discharge. Counsel for Mr. Davidson took the position that if the Board were to find Mr. Davidson unfit, she too would be requesting a conditional discharge.
Current Charges
- The circumstances of the offence alleged against Mr. Davidson is summarized as follows in the Hospital Report:
On Tuesday, May 21, 2024, at 1122 hours, a witness, Christopher FOLEY, observed the accused, later identified as Robert DAVIDSON, stomping on a newly hatched Canada Goose Gosling, on the plaza sidewalk just outside of unit 1-420 Hazeldean Rd. FOLEY intervened, pushing the accused away from the gosling.
On Wednesday May 22, 2024, Cst FADER and Cst LAVIOLETTE of the Ottawa Police service, while working in a uniformed capacity, were dispatched to investigate the animal call, which was phoned in by Kindall TOLMIE of unit 11-420 Hazeldean Rd. Witnesses at scene, which included TOLMIE, FOLEY and Jennifer HOVEY, provided a detailed description of the accused, along with clear photos of the accused taken at the time of the incident and camera footage provided by Chelsea COCHRANE of unit 2-420 Hazeldean Rd, showing the accused hitting the mother goose off of its nest and stomping on the gosling. The gosling was viewed and photographed, with injuries consistent with being stomped on. HOVEY was able to provide a possible address for the accused of 16 Sheldrake Dr.
On Thursday May 23, 2024, at 1548 hours, Cst. LAVIOLETTE and Cst. FADER attended 16 Sheldrake Dr to conduct a door knock. The accused presented himself at the door and was identified by photos provided by witnesses. The accused was immediately advised of the grounds for his arrest and issued a verbal caution. The accused was cooperative and exited his home. The accused was subsequently arrested for C.C.C. 445.1(1)(a) Causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal. The accused was read his rights to counsel, his caution, his secondary caution and his 524 warning. The accused was served and explained the Undertaking and released on scene.
Criminal History
- Mr. Davidson has no criminal record and no known prior history of arrests or criminal charges.
Personal and Psychiatric History
Mr. Davidson is 69 years old. He lives in Kanata with his wife, Floreda Davidson who is Mr. Davidson’s primary caregiver. They have three daughters and one son.
Mr. Davidson completed his high school education. He worked at Canada Post from approximately 2000 to 2016. Beginning in 2013, family and colleagues began noticing changes to Mr. Davidson’s mental health. In November 2013, a supervisor at Canada Post encouraged Mr. Davidson to go to the hospital because it appeared he was experiencing a nervous breakdown. His family physician, Dr. Blake, initiated an urgent referral to psychiatry to query possible psychotic depression.
In January 2015, Mr. Davidson underwent a “cognigram,” that indicated his performance fell in the abnormal range for his age-range on measures of attention and psychomotor functioning and learning and working memory. He then got brain imaging that revealed reduction in blood flow in the left posterior parietal and temporal lobe and borderline perfusion of the posterior cingular gyrus. It was considered that the findings could represent early Alzheimer’s changes and there was no evidence for frontotemporal dementia.
In May 2016, a neuropsychological assessment by Dr. Lisa Carswell (neuropsychologist) indicated severe impairment in language functioning, complex attentional process/working memory, and memory functioning. The neuropsychological testing indicated primarily left temporal and frontal system dysfunction. Dr. Carswell indicated these findings were not in keeping with Alzheimer’s disease, however, more in keeping with “a neurodegenerative process such as semantic dementia.” Dr. Carswell also indicated “the patient’s behavioural issues also raise concern for a frontotemporal dementia.” Dr. Carswell indicated that these findings could also be due a previous stroke or traumatic injury and identified that dementia has to demonstrate a progressive decline in cognitive and functional status over time. Dr. Carswell diagnosed cognitive disorder not otherwise specified and obstructive sleep apnea.
According to his wife, Mr. Davidson’s “life is very small.” He is a hoarder. He does not use the stove. He can do the laundry and bathe himself. When she informs him of an appointment scheduled for the following day, Mr. Davidson will remember and be prepared for that appointment.
Mr. Davidson began using cannabis at 16 years old and continues using three to four cannabis cigarettes per day.
According to Dr. Sandhu’s examination from November 13, 2024, Mr. Davidson’s “emotional expression is blunted and stable. The overall tone of his emotions is inappropriately indifferent. He has limited emotional reactivity to the content of the interview. His thought process is disorganized. He often derails in his thought process and references numerous political figures such as Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau, being vaccinated, and a “disease from China.” His thought content involves referential ideas that politicians have previously complimented him about his work at Canada Post. He has poor insight into his disorganized thought process.”
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Mr. Davidson’s current psychiatric diagnoses are as follows:
a. Probable Frontotemporal Neurocognitive Disorder, language variant
b. Cannabis use Disorder
Mr. Davidson demonstrates a significant cognitive decline that has progressed since 2013. On historical neuropsychological testing, Mr. Davidson has demonstrated severe impairment in language functioning, complex attentional process/working memory, and memory functioning. Specifically, confrontation naming was severely impaired and notable for paraphasic errors and nonsensical words. The neuropsychological testing indicated primarily left temporal and frontal system dysfunction.
Mr. Davidson has had continued and consistent use of cannabis since sixteen years old. He likely demonstrates physical dependence and tolerance of cannabis and has difficulty reducing or transitioning to CBD predominant cannabis when encouraged by his spouse.
Fitness to Stand Trial
- Dr. Sandhu formulated the following opinion as to Mr. Davidson’s fitness to stand trial in the Hospital Report: “Mr. Davidson continues to demonstrate cognitive impairment that impacts his ability to meaningfully communicate in response to fitness questions. He is unable to communicate the nature and object of the court proceedings and further is unable to meaningfully represent his version of events with respect to the alleged offences. His disorganized speech that indicates the extent of his fragmented thought process would impair his ability to meaningfully participate in the court proceedings.”
Current Violence Risk Assessment
Using the HCR-20, version 3 structured risk assessment tool, Dr. Sandhu assessed Mr. Davidson to pose a “moderate” risk of future violence.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Davidson meets the threshold for significant risk despite having no previous incidents of violence towards people.
Mr. Davidson’s risk is elevated due to an increased amount of time in the community without monitoring and supports. At this time, his family is his primary support. Mr. Davidson’s family is welcome to increasing their supports and the forensic treatment team has initiated these inquiries.
Mr. Davidson’s risk can be mitigated with increased monitoring in the community. Further, his risk at this time could be managed by the Mental Health Act as he demonstrates chronic symptoms of a frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder that impacts his ability to support himself independently.
The hospital recommends that Mr. Davidson not have a condition to abstain from cannabis use, as Mr. Davidson has a longstanding history of cannabis use, has limited ability to be retain any education around ceasing cannabis, and may experience deleterious effects having to abruptly discontinue cannabis use.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board received direct testimony from Dr. Amanjot Sandhu, Forensic Psychiatrist with the ROMHC. Dr. Sandhu is the author of the updated hospital report, as well as the original fitness assessment. He adopted the contents of his report and responded to additional questions.
Dr. Sandhu testified that many of the typical risk factors are not present in this case. Mr. Davidson has no criminal record and no history of violence towards people or property. However, what elevates the risk level here is that Mr. Davidson’s wife’s ability to care for him is becoming progressively more limited.
The Hospital is looking into caregiver support in the community. Ontario Health at Home has previously made contact with Mr. Davidson but there has not been meaningful follow up yet. Treatment planning, which can be done with a conditional discharge, can help increase supports in the community, which will in turn improve both Mr. Davidson’s and his caregiver’s quality of life.
Mr. Davidson was most recently assessed for fitness in July 2025. He continues to have difficulty communicating regarding his court proceedings and remains unfit to stand trial. Mr. Davidson has difficulty recalling and associating words (for example, he calls birds “flyers”). He can stay on topic for short periods of time before his thought process devolves into subjects familiar to him, such as politics or COVID-19. He is highly suggestible and would have great difficulty directing his defence.
In light of the chronic and degenerative nature of his dementia, it is Dr. Sandhu’s opinion that Mr. Davidson is permanently unfit.
Dr. Sandhu has no concern that Mr. Davidson would not comply with community supports if they were offered to him. The challenge is to put those supports in place.
In the event that sufficient supports are in place within the next year, Dr. Sandhu would happily request an early ORB hearing if he is of the opinion that Mr. Davidson no longer poses a significant risk to the public.
The parties called no further evidence.
Submissions of the Parties
- All parties maintained their original positions. The Hospital and the Attorney General maintained that Mr. Davidson remains unfit, and though counsel for Mr. Davidson took no position on the issue of fitness, she joined in the recommendation for a conditional discharge.
Conclusions and Disposition
The Board is in full agreement with Dr. Sandhu’s opinion that Mr. Davidson remains unfit to stand trial. The evidence establishes that Mr. Davidson is unable to meaningfully participate in his defence because regardless of whether internally he is able to make “reality-based decisions” regarding the conduct of his defence, his neurocognitive disorder renders him unable to “intelligibly communicate” those decisions to counsel or the Court. (see R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, para. 77).
The question of whether Mr. Davidson currently poses a significant risk to the safety of the public is more difficult. He has no history of violence towards persons, nor any criminal history at all. The current criminal charges, while highly concerning, remain unproven allegations. Nevertheless, Mr. Davidson’s behaviour, as observed by the witnesses outlined in the synopsis, could certainly be said to pose a risk of significant psychological harm to anyone observing such an unnecessary killing of a baby animal. This, combined with Dr. Sandhu’s evidence that Mr. Davidson will continue to pose a moderate risk to the public unless and until he receives sufficient community support beyond merely the well-meaning help of his wife and family, tips the balance in favour of a finding that Mr. Davidson currently poses a significant risk to the public, and the Board so finds.
It is worth noting that this finding is effectively academic at this stage. Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code sets out the dispositions available to the Board and does not permit the Board to direct an absolute discharge in the case of an unfit accused person, only one found not criminally responsible (see 672.54(1)). Instead, if the Board finds that a permanently unfit accused does not pose a significant risk to the public, section 672.851(1) of the Criminal Code allows the Board to make a recommendation that the Court hold an inquiry as to whether a stay of proceedings ought to be entered. However, section 672.851(1)(a) only allows the Board to make such a recommendation at a review hearing pursuant to sections 672.81 or 672.82 of the Criminal Code. This is an initial disposition hearing pursuant to section 672.47 of the Criminal Code, not a review hearing under section 672.81 or 672.82. As such, the Board does not have the authority to make a recommendation under 672.851(1) at this hearing. The constitutionality of section 672.851(1)(a) was upheld by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in R. v. Lynn, 2020 ONSC 4581.
As such, the only dispositions available to the Board at this hearing are a conditional discharge or a detention order. The Board agrees with the joint recommendation for a conditional discharge. There is no reason to doubt that Mr. Davidson will voluntarily engage with the community supports that are made available to him, and the Board accepts Dr. Sandhu’s evidence that the Mental Health Act is capable of addressing any potential decompensation on the part of Mr. Davidson. As such, a conditional discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition capable of protecting the safety of the public.
If the Hospital is successful in obtaining sufficient community support for Mr. Davidson within the reporting year such that it is of the opinion that Mr. Davidson no longer poses a significant risk to the public, the Board trusts and expects that the Hospital will request an early disposition review hearing under section 672.82(1) of the Criminal Code, where, if the Board is in agreement that Mr. Davidson no longer poses a significant risk, a recommendation pursuant to section 672.851(1)1(a) can be made.
We thank Dr. Sandhu and both counsel for their assistance.
DATED this 16th day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. A. Herscovitch Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board