Ontario Review Board
Re: Crystal Ferridge
ORB File No: 8791
Hearing held on: Friday, July 25, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann
Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. G. Kerry Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Crystal Ferridge Counsel: Mr. A. Confente
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 27, 2025)
Introduction
On May 28, 2025, Crystal Ferridge was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on one count of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). The matter of a disposition was deferred to the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”).
On July 25, 2025, the Board convened this panel to conduct a hearing at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (“SJHH” or “the Hospital”) and make an initial disposition.
At issue in the hearing was whether Ms. Ferridge is a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage her risk and her care, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Ferridge was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. A. Confente. Mr. S. O’Brien represented the Hospital and Ms. J. McKenzie represented the Attorney General of Ontario. Also in attendance were several members of Ms. Ferridge’s treatment team, including her primary nurse, as well as the victim of the index offence, Ms. Hunter Hull.
A Hospital Report dated July 9, 2025, was received by the panel and entered as an exhibit at the hearing as was Ms. Hull’s undated Victim Impact Statement1 (VIS) received by the panel July 24, 2025, which she read aloud.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Ms. Ferridge is diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, Stimulant Use Disorder, Alcohol Use Disorder and Mixed Personality Disorder.
Index Offences
- The following description of the index offence is summarized from information contained in the Hospital Report and reflecting the gravamen of an Agreed Statement of Facts filed with the court in support of Ms. Ferridge’s NCR finding:
On Thursday April 4th, 2024, at the city of St. Catharines [Crystal Ferridge] did attempt to murder Hunter Hull by stabbing her about the head, neck, shoulders, chest and back with a knife over 40 times, contrary to section 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Throughout the morning and early afternoon hours of Thursday April 4th, 2024, the accused, Crystal Ferridge, and the victim, Hunter Hull, discussed the mental health issues endured by the accused.
At some point in their discussion, the accused retrieved an unspecified knife and concealed it in her right shirt sleeve.
At approximately 2:00 pm, the accused requested the victim engage her in a mutual hug. The victim was agreeable to the request and approached the accused in the living room area inside apartment 202 of 88 Vintage Crescent in the city of St. Catharines.
The accused, suddenly and without provocation, removed the concealed knife from her sleeve and commenced a violent barrage of stabs to the victim’s head, upper chest and neck. The victim attempted to struggle and fight back by means of punches and kicks. These defensive tactics were unsuccessful. The victim began to flee by way of running throughout the living room around pieces of furniture. The victim begged the accused to think about the impact on her [the accused’s] children not having a grandmother. The accused relentlessly continued to chase and stab the victim in the head, back, neck and shoulders. At some point, the victim turned and grabbed the accused by her right sleeve with the intention of stopping the attack. The accused used her left hand and retrieved the knife and again stabbed the victim in the head, upper chest, back, neck and shoulders.
The accused shoved the victim to the floor in the corner of the living room. The victim covered herself with her hands in a further attempt to protect herself from what she perceived as her impending demise. The accused stood above the victim and continued to stab in a downward motion. The knife again stuck the victim in the head, neck, chest back and shoulders.
As suddenly as the attack commenced, it abruptly ceased. The accused walked away from the victim and exited the apartment.
…It was initially believed that the victim was stabbed approximately 15 times. Members of the investigative team attended the Hamilton General Hospital Trauma Department and it was determined the victim was stabbed over 40 times. The stab wounds were described as 1 to 1.5 inches long and varied in depth.
According to police documentation, at the time of the index offence, Ms. Ferridge was on a conditional discharge, including 12 months of probation, following an assault against her mother [Ms. Hull] in 2023. In addition to the documented 2023 assault, the victim reported Ms. Ferridge assaulted her on numerous occasions, including choking, beating and stabbing her with scissors.
Ms. Ferridge’s account of the facts and circumstances leading up to the index offence referenced her continuing to experience psychosis despite having received medication. The symptoms led her to become reclusive and increasingly paranoid. She believed that her mother was a demon intent on abusing Ms. Ferridge’s children.
Background Information
The Hospital Report contains a great deal of information about Ms. Ferridge’s psychosocial and legal history which will not be repeated in detail in these Reasons except to highlight the following relevant points:
Ms. Ferridge is 41 years old. Her parents are Hunter Hull and Robert Ferridge. Ms. Ferridge is the second child in a sibline of two. Ms. Ferridge's parents were married in 1982 and the family lived in Hamilton, Ontario. Ms. Ferridge describes her early years as happy. Her parents divorced when she was eight. Her mother then relocated herself and the children to the Yukon where Ms. Hull’s new partner lived.
Ms. Ferridge reported that Ms. Hull’s partner was abusive towards Ms. Hull and emotionally abusive towards herself. On two occasions, Ms. Hull, Ms. Ferridge and her sister fled to a women’s shelter in Edmonton, Alberta prior to returning to Hamilton permanently.
Ms. Ferridge attended elementary school in Hamilton and the Yukon. She attended a secondary school in Hamilton with a vocational focus for students who struggled academically. Ms. Ferridge left school in grade 11 without completing her Ontario Secondary School Graduation Diploma.
Ms. Ferridge has not consistently maintained close relationships with her father and her sister.
Ms. Ferridge has a significant abuse and trauma history, including sexual assault and abusive relationships with men. Ms. Ferridge is single and has three children who are not in her custody. She has never married. Ms. Ferridge regards her mother as the person to whom she was closest and who was always there to support her during her many difficulties.
Substance Use History
- Ms. Ferridge has a lengthy history of substance use from an early age. She began using cannabis at the age of 13. She began to associate with the “wrong crowd” and ran away from home for days at a time. She also began to pull out her hair (trichotillomania). She used cannabis daily as a teenager and her use of alcohol was also problematic. Ms. Ferridge’s use of crack cocaine escalated at around 16 years of age when she began working as an exotic dancer and participating in sex work. Her crack cocaine use escalated after her children were apprehended by child protection authorities in 2014. Ms. Ferridge experimented with ecstasy, crystal methamphetamine, opioids, MDMA and psilocybin mushrooms. Some of Ms. Ferridge’s drug use included substances she took intravenously. She reported using illicit substances whether she was taking antipsychotic medication or not. Ms. Ferridge attended residential treatment for her substance use issues in June 2018. She was abstinent from substances for about 18 months following her discharge from the program but relapsed again. She last used crack cocaine in the fall of 2023, at which time she accidentally overdosed on what she believed was crack cocaine and needed life-saving intervention with Narcan.
Psychiatric History
Ms. Ferridge had her first major psychiatric episode in 2006. She was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and upon her release from hospital, returned to live with her mother in Hamilton. Ms. Ferridge was hospitalized on many occasions thereafter. The Hospital Report refers to 18 admissions to inpatient care beginning in February of 2006 and ending with her admission to the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) at SJHH for a 60-day psychiatric assessment after being charged with the index offence. For further particulars of Ms. Ferridge’s inpatient care history, reference can be made to pages 8 through 17 of the Hospital Report.
Ms. Ferridge’s admissions to hospital were very often characterized by emotional lability, psychosis, including auditory and visual hallucinations, paranoid ideation, tangential and disorganized thought processes with significant aggression, hypersexuality, as well as suicidal and homicidal ideation. Ms. Ferridge has a history of suicide attempts.
Noncompliance with medication and failure to consistently adhere to treatment and follow up were pervasive themes throughout her psychiatric history. At times seclusion and chemical restraint were necessary to control her aggressive behaviour. Ms. Ferridge also had a pattern of responding quickly to antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication which led to rapid discharge from hospital. She would be stable for a period of time, relapse to use of substances and/or fall away from treatment, experience a resurgence of psychosis and/or mood symptoms and behavioural dysregulation and present for emergency care once again.
Ms. Ferridge also has a history of participating sporadically in outpatient care. Again, there was a pattern of her not attending her appointments regularly. Ms. Ferridge was involved with the Niagara Mental Health Outpatient Clinic in 2021 and was subject to a Community Treatment Order, which was supervised by Dr. A.A. Muhammad. It expired and was not renewed. In 2022, she attended the medication clinic at St. Catharines General Hospital, continuing under the care of Dr. Muhammad. Her clinic appointments were scheduled approximately every 10 weeks. She missed her scheduled injection in June of 2023 and was last seen and administered her medication in the community at the end of February 2024.
When not symptomatic, Ms. Ferridge is an intelligent, friendly and insightful person who demonstrates an understanding of her illness and an ability to self-reflect on her thoughts and feelings.
Criminal History
- Ms. Ferridge has a criminal record including a 2023 conviction for assault, two charges of failure to comply (2023) and two convictions of theft under (2023). The Hospital Report notes that the assault in 2023 involved Ms. Hull.
Course in Hospital Before and After NCR Finding
Ms. Ferridge was admitted to SJHH on December 10, 2024, for a court-ordered assessment and was returned to Vanier Centre for Women on February 11, 2025. Ms. Ferridge was readmitted to the FAU on March 17, 2025 and has remained in hospital since that time.
Following Ms. Ferridge’s first admission to SJHH in December 2024, Ms. Ferridge was stable overall. She was cooperative with assessment and compliant with medication. She presented as friendly and cooperative. She easily established rapport with clinical staff. During her second admission in March 2025, her presentation was markedly different. She was largely uncooperative with nursing staff and appeared disheveled. She was intermittently hostile with staff, struggled to follow direction and more disorganized in her thinking and behaviour. Within 24 hours of admission, Ms. Ferridge was placed in seclusion because she became agitated due to perceiving that a co-patient was staring at her. She behaved bizarrely and would often stand at the care desk and glare at staff. She appeared to be internally preoccupied and at times would lose her train of thought which had not previously been observed. She was suspicious towards staff, at one point barricading the door to her room with a chair. At the beginning of her admission, she took her scheduled oral antipsychotic medication only intermittently. When she was due for her scheduled long-acting antipsychotic injection, she refused. Staff observed a progressive decline in her mental status and an increase in hostility the longer Ms. Ferridge went without medication. She was again placed in seclusion on April 9, 2025, due to increased aggression, including yelling and using racial slurs.
Ms. Ferridge’s mental status gradually improved after she resumed taking her antipsychotic medication in mid-April 2025. She became more organized, less suspicious, less irritable and more cooperative with staff. Her ability to focus and participate in programming was also noticeably better. Her level of engagement with staff and cooperation continued to improve with ongoing treatment. She was visible on the unit, appropriate in her interactions with others and tolerant of acutely unwell patients which was not the case earlier in her admission.
Ms. Ferridge is capable of consenting to treatment and of managing her property and finances. When less symptomatic, Ms. Ferridge has a reasonable understanding of the warning signs of mental deterioration (poor personal hygiene, irritability, decreased sleep, increased energy and goal-directed but disorganized behaviour) She can appreciate the benefit of participating in counseling and accepting practical support (with housing). Early in her admission she was ambivalent about her need for addictions counseling but this resolved as she became more amenable to treatment with psychiatric medication.
Preliminary Issue – Content of the Victim Impact Statement
- At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Confente raised an issue with respect to a portion of Ms. Hull’s VIS straying beyond the confines set out in the Criminal Code; specifically references to events that did not form part of the offences which Ms. Ferridge was found NCR. Counsel pointed out that as Ms. Ferridge has no obligation to give evidence at the hearing, she has no opportunity to reply to the allegations, which would be prejudicial. Hospital counsel did not take a position. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Ms. Hall should be allowed to read her victim impact statement in its entirety and that the Board should disabuse its mind of inappropriate content. After brief deliberations, the Board agreed with Mr. Confente’s submission, and the offending portion was redacted, noting that the objectionable material was properly considered as part of the risk assessment contained in the Hospital Report but did not fall within the boundaries of what is permissible in a VIS.
Position of the Parties
- Counsel for the Hospital, the Attorney General and Ms. Ferridge advised they were joined in the Hospital’s recommendation that Ms. Ferridge be found to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order. Counsel for the Hospital and Ms. Ferridge were aligned in recommending that Ms. Ferridge’s disposition subject her to the terms and conditions set out at page 31 to 32 of the Hospital Report. Counsel for the Attorney General wished to explore the issue of the breadth of privileges being proposed, particularly indirectly supervised access to the catchment area of SJHH and Southern Ontario and reserved her position on this point pending the conclusion of the evidence.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it information in the documents forming the Record, the Exhibits and oral evidence from Dr. A. Courtright.
In her evidence Dr. Courtright confirmed that she adopted the contents of the Hospital Report following which she provided an overview of Ms. Ferridge’s current clinical status, level of risk and the rationale in support of the Hospital’s recommendation as to the necessary and appropriate Disposition and its terms.
The doctor noted the striking difference in Ms. Ferridge’s presentation upon her return to SJHH from Vanier. She was significantly irritable, struggled to follow direction and on two occasions was aggressive toward others. Collateral information from Vanier was that she had been intermittently adherent to antipsychotic medication. She was subsequently restarted on anti-psychotic medication and there was rapid improvement. Currently she has good insight into her illness, including the link between the risk she poses when she is mentally unwell and the harm to her mother. Ms. Ferris is compliant with medication and able to identify her symptoms. She has not been violent or aggressive in any way since the early days of her second admission. While she has improved in the structured hospital setting, history demonstrates she can rapidly fall away from treatment and develop symptoms of paranoia and misperception. She loses insight into her illness and is not able to recognize when she is becoming unwell.
Dr. Courtright explained that Ms. Ferridge’s substance use disorders pose the risk of worsening her psychosis and increasing her aggression. Substance use disorders are by their nature relapsing and remitting conditions. While Ms. Ferridge has remained abstinent in a very controlled hospital setting, her ability to maintain abstinence in a less structured and supervised setting with greater access to substances of abuse has not been assessed. Combined with the relapsing/remitting nature of her schizoaffective disorder and the rapidity with which she becomes symptomatic when her medication adherence is less than optimal, Ms. Ferridge poses a significant threat to the safety of the public at this time.
Over the next year, the treatment team wishes to see Ms. Ferridge continue with her anti-psychotic medications and maintain her level of stability while participating in rehabilitative programming focused on her needs, such as support to remain adherent to her medication regimen and relapse prevention support, counseling, and improving her ability to cope with stress.
Given Ms. Ferridge’s improved insight and no current symptoms the treatment team recommended that Ms. Ferridge be granted the privilege of living in the community in approved accommodation as there is a reasonable possibility that she will be ready for this later in the year. Also, including the privilege in Ms. Ferridge’s disposition will allow her to be placed on waitlists, which are lengthy, for appropriate accommodation in the community. The treatment team also plans to address other aspects of optimizing Ms. Ferridge’s mental health include a sleep study to rule out apnea. The treatment team sees her involvement in vocational programing as a positive sign and will continue to encourage this.
In response to questions from Counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Contente, Dr. Courtright confirmed that community living was not being contemplated in the near future because of the seriousness of the index offence and the relative recency of Ms. Ferridge’s improved state. Including the privilege in her disposition would help her reach her longer-term goal of independent living.
Dr. Courtright described the slow and cautious process of liberalizing Ms. Ferridge’s privileges. The doctor indicated that Ms. Ferridge would not be discharged to reside in the Niagara region having regard to Ms. Hull’s concerns for her safety. Ms. Ferridge would prefer to reside in the Hamilton area which she views as giving her an opportunity for a fresh start. Access to southern Ontario might allow her to participate in group recreational activities supported by the Hospital. Indirectly supervised access would be incrementally granted. Ms. Ferridge would be required to first provide an itinerary and the purpose of her passes.
When questioned about Ms. Ferridge’s change in antipsychotic medication from a long-acting injectable to equivalent oral medication, and whether that reflected a lack of judgment on her part, Dr. Courtright explained that Ms. Ferridge was concerned about some nodules under her skin that were developing in response to injections. In the doctor’s opinion, the concern was not unreasonable. Dr. Courtright commented that prior to the index offense, Ms. Ferridge was likely on an ineffective dose of her antipsychotic medication because she had missed an injection earlier in the year. It was also possible that the needle her medication was being administered with was too short to deliver the medication effectively into her arm muscle. Switching back to injectable medication could be revisited over the course of the year but for now she is doing well on oral medication.
Ms. Ferridge takes awhile to develop trust, which is another factor that may complicate the course of her recovery. Currently she is motivated to continue with her medication. She is sleeping better overall which contributes in a positive way to her physical and mental well-being. Dr. Courtright may be able to continue as Ms. Ferridge’s psychiatrist as she also works on the rehabilitation unit.
Dr. Courtright felt that some of the psychological tests showing Ms. Ferridge as being inclined to minimize her failings and exaggerate her positive qualities could reflect her legal situation at the time the tests were administered. Dr. Courtright said that the treatment team is alive to the issue, as it is common in the patient population under their care, and would continue to assess the veracity of Ms. Ferridge’s self-reports by also comparing them to her objective behaviours.
In response to questions from the Board, the doctor could not say whether Ms. Ferridge’s insight is a new development given the limited time they have been working together.
Ms. Ferridge has not been asked to submit to urine testing because she is on a closed unit were there is little likelihood of substances being brought in and because there has been no indication she has used. When she moves to a less secure unit, she will be required to undergo routine and random urine drug screens as well as on an as-needed basis if her clinical presentation warrants it. Ms. Ferridge is addressing problems with her dentition and also receiving medication to control her pain. Ms. Ferridge’s mixed personality factors predispose her to experiencing affective instability and a tendency to feel justified in becoming angry or aggressive towards others when crossed. DBT is the best treatment option for these issues, as well as taking steps to maximize her overall stability by maintaining her abstinence, continuing to take her medication and to work on developing more adaptive coping mechanisms. Dr. Courtright felt Ms. Ferridge would likely be a good candidate for Dialectic Behavioural Therapy (DBT).
Dr. Courtright is of the view that including a “live in the community” privilege will not cause frustration or misalignment between Ms. Ferridge’s goals and the team’s; to the contrary, Ms. Ferridge will likely find it motivating. The purpose of longer indirectly supervised passes in the broader community is to provide Ms. Ferridge with opportunities to go shopping, seek education or employment opportunities should she wish to do so.
The Board explored the issue of a proximity limitation preventing Ms. Ferridge from attending Ms. Hull’s residence. Counsel for the Attorney General advised Ms. Hull’s preference is that Ms. Ferridge be prohibited from entering the entirety of the Niagara Region. Dr. Courtright did not see the need to prohibit Ms. Ferridge from entering the Niagara Region but neither did she see any particular reason to allow it. Mr. Confente was not opposed to terms requiring Ms. Ferridge to refrain from attending places where Ms. Hull might be but was opposed to a blanket prohibition covering the entirety of the Niagara Region as this is where Ms. Ferridge’s children are said to reside and there may be an opportunity for her to have contact with them over the next year. Dr. Courtright mentioned that Ms. Ferridge is interested in seeing her children, but that this issue has not yet been explored by the treatment team.
At this point in the hearing, Ms. Hull read her VIS which detailed the attack she endured and its impact on her physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing. She continues to experience pain; some of the injuries she suffered have caused permanent injury. She wished Ms. Ferridge well but stated it was not healthy for her to continue to have Ms. Ferridge in her life. Ms. Hull was thanked for sharing her lived experience with the Board.
Submissions
- In submissions, Hospital Counsel noted the joint position as to significant threat and the necessity for a detention disposition order on the terms set out in the Hospital Report. With respect to a perimeter restriction, Mr. O’Brien submitted that the entirety of the Niagara Region was too broad an area and that a distance of one kilometre was still a large area but would not be unduly restrictive. Counsel for the Attorney General noted that Ms. Ferridge has a long-standing major mental illness complicated by substance use and treatment non-adherence, under the influence of which she becomes aggressive; historically, her mother has often been a target. The risk posed by Ms. Ferridge is real and significant. Ms. McKenzie opposed the need for Ms. Ferridge to have indirectly supervised access into the Southern Ontario, including the Niagara Region as a whole. Noting the extent of Ms. Hull’s injuries as amply described in her VIS, Ms. Hull should not be subjected to the trauma of an unexpected meeting with Ms. Ferridge. Counsel was not opposed to Ms. Ferridge entering the Niagara Region if accompanied by staff or an approved person. Counsel did not think it necessary for Ms. Ferridge to access Southern Ontario indirectly supervised or for seven day passes as shopping and educational opportunities were all available closer to the Hospital. Mr. Confente supported the position of the Hospital.
Analysis and Conclusion
- Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds Ms. Ferridge’s constellation of symptoms and behaviours are such that she poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. Although the Board was presented with a joint position on this point, the Board has no difficulty reaching an independent conclusion to the same effect. In this regard, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Courtright, in addition to the documentary evidence before it and in particular the risk assessment contained at pp. 31 of the Hospital Report, as follows:
“In the absence of external control through an ORB disposition, Ms. Ferridge is at high risk of engaging in future violence in the community given her historical and dynamic risk factors. This opinion is consistent with the psychological risk assessment prepared by Dr. Moulden in 2024. The main factors driving this level of risk are her Schizoaffective Disorder and her Substance Use Disorders. When psychiatrically decompensated, Ms. Ferridge is likely to lose her insight into her mental illness, misperceive threats, and respond pre-emptively with aggression as she has done in the past. Substance use, particularly stimulant use, would lead to a worsening of psychosis and/or increase in aggression and disinhibition, further increasing the potential for harm to others. Other destabilizing factors include difficulty with emotion regulation, limited adaptive coping skills, lack of social supports, and financial and housing instability. Accordingly, it is my opinion that Ms. Ferridge poses a significant risk to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage her level of risk is a Detention Order.”
The Board concurs with this assessment. The index offence was extremely serious and violent in nature; it is indeed fortunate that Ms. Ferridge’s actions did not result in the victim’s death
Currently and positively, Ms. Ferridge is responding well to treatment and is free of psychosis symptoms. Her mood has stabilized, save for situation-appropriate anxiety and sadness. She has good insight into her illness and ongoing need for treatment, as well as the risks associated with non-adherence to medication. Ms. Ferridge appears motivated to remain mentally stable and abstinent from substance use. She is forward-looking and wishes to go to school, work and reintegrate to the community. However, Ms. Ferridge’s mental stability is tied to her medication adherence and abstinence from substances of abuse; she decompensates quickly when not optimally treated with antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medication and/or under the influence of intoxicants. She has a pattern of rapid stabilization of her mental state and equally rapid decompensation, which has contributed to an inability to sustain lasting stability when living in the community and resulted in repeated episodes where Ms. Ferridge would deteriorate, with and without the influence of substances of abuse, and act out aggressively towards others including her mother.
Further, the Board notes that Ms. Ferridge’s current level of mental stability and improved functioning has been achieved within a highly structured and supportive forensic setting where her access to licit and illicit substances has been constrained. Her ability to remain mentally stable, adherent to medication, abstinent from substances and co-operative with staff direction has not been assessed in a less structured environment with a more liberal array of privileges available to her and ready access to drugs. Ms. Ferridge remains in need of treatment and care so that she may achieve a more lasting remission of symptoms, explore past trauma, develop adaptive coping mechanisms and the skills to manage living safely in the community. The “revolving door” pattern evident in Ms. Ferridge’s psychiatric history must come to an end. This will require patience, fortitude, commitment and hard work on Ms. Ferridge’s part. On the facts before it, the Board is optimistic that with the continued support of her treatment team and engagement in recommended therapeutic initiatives, Ms. Ferridge can achieve her goals.
The Board further concludes that Ms. Ferridge’s risk to the safety of the public can be appropriately managed with a detention disposition order maintaining her at SJHH. The most liberal privilege to be accorded to Ms. Ferridge is that she may be permitted to live in the community within the catchment area of SJHH, in accommodation approved by the person in charge. Subject to the no-contact and perimeter-restraint protections to be afforded Ms. Hull, Ms. Ferridge may enter the community within the catchment area of SJHH, indirectly supervised upon first obtaining approval of her itinerary. She may also have passes for up to7 days to enter the community within the catchment area of SJHH, indirectly supervised upon obtaining approval of her itinerary, within the catchment area of SJHH, and subject to the no-contact and perimeter-restraint protections vis a vis Ms. Hull.
The Board agrees with counsel for the Attorney General that it is premature to permit Ms. Ferridge to have indirectly supervised access into Southern Ontario particularly when no specific need for this has been identified in the evidence. However, Ms. Ferridge shall be able to enter the community of Southern Ontario, escorted or accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge. This will allow her to participate in such social and recreational opportunities as may arise over the coming year. It will also allow her to attend within the Niagara Region, escorted or accompanied by staff of a person approved by the person in charge should contact her children become a reality over the next year.
The Board concurs with counsel for the Hospital and Ms. Ferridge that a term prohibiting her from entering the Niagara Region in its entirety is too restrictive, and not necessary to protect Ms. Hull. The Board notes, here, that the SJHH “catchment area” includes St. Catharines which is within the Niagara Region. But for Dr. Courtright’s stated intention to not seek a community placement for Ms. Ferridge in the Niagara Region, including St. Catharines, and Ms. Ferridge’s own desire to start a new life in the Hamilton area, the Board might otherwise have been inclined to prohibit the Hospital from discharging her to accommodation in the Niagara Region.
In addition, Ms. Ferridge is to abstain absolutely from drugs, alcohol and other intoxicants, submit samples of urine and/or breath, refrain from possessing any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon. She must abide by terms enjoining her from direct or indirect contact or communication with Ms. Hull and not to attend within 500 metres of the victim’s residence or any known place of residence, employment, education, worship recreation or any other place where she knows Ms. Hull to frequent or be. When living in the community, Ms. Ferridge is to report to the person in charge of SJHH or their designate not less than four times per month.
In coming to this determination, the Board has considered the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Ms. Ferridge, her reintegration into society and her other needs.
The Board wishes Ms. Ferridge all the best in the coming year.
DATED this 27^th^ day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. T. Mann Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board