Ontario Review Board
Re: Jonathan R. Boisvert
ORB File No: 7585
Hearing held on: Tuesday, September 9, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. L. Maunder Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jonathan R. Boisvert Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 31, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On August 13, 2019, Jonathan R. Boisvert was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code.
[2]. Mr. Boisvert is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition of September 16, 2024, which discharges him from hospital with conditions that include abstaining from the non-medical use of drugs or intoxicants other than alcohol, and upon notice to attend for psychiatric assessment and/or admission to hospital (known as the Young Clause).
[3]. On September 9, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (“St. Joseph's”) to conduct Mr. Boisvert’s annual review and to make a Disposition further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The initial positions of the hospital and the Attorney General recommended a continuation of Mr. Boisvert’s Disposition but with the removal of the substance prohibition and Young clauses from the conditions.
[4]. On behalf of his client, Mr. Schloss advised that Mr. Boisvert wishes to have an absolute discharge as he considers that he is not a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Index Offences
[5]. Last year's Reasons for Disposition outline the circumstances surrounding the index offences as follows:
“On March 30, 2018, while the victim was riding his bicycle on the edge of a roadway, Mr. Boisvert, driving a Mini Cooper motor vehicle, approached the bicyclist from behind and struck him. The victim was propelled over the handlebars and landed on the ground.
After striking the victim with his vehicle, Mr. Boisvert sped away from the scene. The collision was witnessed by an individual who followed Mr. Boisvert and observed him travelling in the wrong lane on a street with his hazard lights flashing. He was honking the horn and swerving at oncoming vehicles, causing them to take evasive action to avoid a collision. He proceeded through a red light without slowing down. Police arrived and observed him driving in reverse down a street. He came to a stop in the middle of an intersection when he observed police present.”
Background
[6]. A Hospital Report of August 22, 2025, was filed as an exhibit and includes a July 15, 2025 attachment from the Good Shepherd HOMES program at Emmaus Place in Hamilton.
[7]. The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Boisvert’s personal and psychiatric history and his course of treatment since being detained in hospital following his NCR finding. It should be referred to for detail.
[8]. In summary, Mr. Boisvert is now 39 years of age. Prior to the index offences Mr. Boisvert had been charged with uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm. This had taken place in October of 2017. He was assessed for criminal responsibility for that charge; it was ultimately stayed. He was assessed again for criminal responsibility on the index offence charges and following his NCR finding on August 13, 2019, he was detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph's Healthcare.
[9]. Mr. Boisvert was discharged to reside in the community of Hamilton on August 16, 2021, but a month later he was readmitted due to a significant deterioration in his mental state.
[10]. A Restriction of Liberties hearing took place at the same time as his scheduled annual review and on October 19, 2022, the Board issued a conditional discharge. He was discharged to the community, but required one readmission from March to April 2024, again due to decompensation in his mental state.
[11]. In September of 2023, Mr. Boisvert was moved from Emmaus Place, a Good Shepherd program, into a one-bedroom apartment, living more independently in the community but still part of the Good Shepherd HOMES program.
[12]. Mr. Boisvert suffers from schizophrenia. He is capable to consent to psychiatric treatment and manage his own finances. His primary medication is long-acting injectable medication, paliperidone.
[13]. Mr. Boisvert has no history of abuse of substances and he denies their use.
[14]. Mr. Boisvert was diagnosed with schizophrenia in high school. According to his mother, he struggled academically at school due to symptoms of this illness. He eventually graduated from grade 12 and attended various colleges and Brock University but never completed a degree or diploma.
[15]. Notwithstanding Mr. Boisvert’s denial of substance use, the Hospital Report observes that when he first experienced psychiatric symptoms around the age of 16 he might have been using cocaine. His family doctor started him on antipsychotic medications for “paranoid schizophrenia”. He was apparently adherent with this, and his symptoms were well controlled throughout the remainder of his high school years.
[16]. Over the years Mr. Boisvert had a brief admission to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and St. Catharines General Hospital for his symptoms. In the community he was never connected with any psychiatric follow-up.
[17]. At his assessment for criminal responsibility on July 30, 2019, although by outward appearances he seemed to be stable, alert, calm and cooperative, he was experiencing numerous delusions, mostly of a persecutory nature including being watched by others, being poisoned or his medications being tampered with, and fears that his safety could be at risk or fears that his family had been murdered.
[18]. At that time Mr. Boisvert had no insight into the improbable and bizarre nature of his beliefs.
[19]. At last year’s Board review, Mr. Boisvert had been residing alone in a subsidized Good Shepherd apartment. Although compliant with medication and no evidence of use of substances, he was readmitted to hospital due to mental decompensation coincident with his delusions becoming violent in nature. He had started to drink non-alcoholic beer, started a non-profit organization with his own money and impulsively purchased a puppy.
[20]. Once his mental state seemed to be at baseline, Mr. Boisvert was discharged back to the community on April 24, 2024. At baseline, Mr. Boisvert continued to experience delusional and intrusive thoughts about many areas of his life. When he was readmitted to hospital, he lacked insight into his relapsing symptoms and only agreed reluctantly to be admitted. His injectable antipsychotic medication was increased in frequency from 12 weeks to 10 weeks.
Evidence at Hearing
[21]. Dr. Prat has been Mr. Boisvert’s attending psychiatrist since November of 2020. Dr. Prat testified that there have been no incidents of aggression or violence or major altercations in the past year, but there has been not much progress either. He still suffers from fluctuating psychotic symptoms into which he has no insight. He has difficulty in developing a rapport with and receiving feedback from his forensic team members, particularly in the areas of his isolation and employment goals.
[22]. More recently, there has been an increase in Mr. Boisvert’s delusional ideas, possibly due to his upcoming Review Board hearing and/or because he knows the hospital is not recommending an absolute discharge.
[23]. Mr. Boisvert recognizes that he is affected by stress, but does not think that to be a reason for his delusional thinking.
[24]. The Hospital Report has a number of notable incidents recorded. In December of 2024, Mr. Boisvert became verbally aggressive with his case manager, feeling that staff were “snooping into” his business. He became verbally aggressive when an attempted interaction to discuss his vocational options took place.
[25]. In July of 2025, Mr. Boisvert formed a new delusional belief that he had been married for over 11 years to a woman named “Holly”. He was wearing a wedding band. He refused to answer questions about this relationship. Mr. Boisvert’s mother denies that any marriage took place although her son apparently had a high school relationship with someone named Holly. That relationship did not last long.
[26]. In August of 2025, in addition to continuing to share the belief about his marriage to Holly, Mr. Boisvert described a co-resident as a past enemy associated with Hells Angels. Consideration was given once again to adjusting his medication.
[27]. Subsequently, Mr. Boisvert advised that his family was connected to Hells Angels and felt that it offered him some protection. Additionally, he believed that the Forensic Outpatient Team was trying to get evidence against him for the Ontario Review Board.
[28]. The Hospital Report observes that although he has had some fixed persecutory and grandiose delusions over time, Mr. Boisvert’s above-noted beliefs expressed in this past reporting year are a new presentation. According to Dr. Prat these are at a level of paranoia similar to that at the time of the index offences. Mr. Boisvert is unable to recognize their association and they fluctuate depending on his level of stress.
[29]. Dr. Prat touched on Mr. Boisvert’s relationship with the outpatient program. The program's case manager has just changed because of the difficulties of the relationship with Mr. Boisvert. Mr. Boisvert is under the impression that the team is emphasizing negative factors of his presentation and as such he would not accept their recommendations. Meetings with them were fractious and he was antagonistic with staff. Dr. Prat is under the impression that some of these ideas are psychotically driven.
[30]. Dr. Prat acknowledged that Mr. Boisvert is a kind man, but he becomes overwhelmed by paranoia. His psychotic symptoms are not optimally treated nor is he adequately accepting feedback to deal with them. Over the past two weeks Dr. Prat has discussed with Mr. Boisvert about optimizing his medications. He has not yet accepted any change.
[31]. Mr. Boisvert has been introduced to the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia, which after initial assessment of Mr. Boisvert’s needs, wished to have the continued involvement of the hospital's forensic team in their program. They felt that Mr. Boisvert would not be agreeable with their feedback and medication suggestions.
[32]. Dr. Prat acknowledges this difficulty. He is of the view that Mr. Boisvert has enough insight into his medications that Dr. Prat would be unable to support a finding that he is incapable of making his own treatment decisions.
[33]. Some discourse took place between Dr. Prat and counsel and the Board about what effect, if any, Mr. Boisvert’s delusions have on his ability to safely drive. Dr. Prat acknowledges that his delusions do fluctuate from time to time but not to a point where it should affect his driving.
[34]. If Mr. Boisvert received an absolute discharge Dr. Prat testified that he would likely attend the Schizophrenia Program initially but would probably disengage if they recommended something that he disagreed with. Unlike detention under the Ontario Review Board, attendance at the Schizophrenia Program is voluntary if granted an absolute discharge. Dr. Prat expects that just as Mr. Boisvert has difficulty accepting feedback and recognizing barriers to success with his hospital outpatient team, this difficulty would likely continue with the Schizophrenia Program.
[35]. Dr. Prat is also of the view that if Mr. Boisvert received an absolute discharge, he might continue with medications for a while as he does see some benefit to them, but it is unclear if he would be able to identify all symptoms as symptoms of a mental illness when they appear. His insight in this respect is not full.
[36]. Mr. Boisvert testified. Mr. Boisvert disagrees with any reference to his having limited insight as in the past he had sought himself to get help. He cites an incident when he attended the hospital, and his condition was such that the clinicians felt his medication had to be adjusted. Mr. Boisvert said that on that occasion he had been running to the hospital consistent with his intention to diet and to physically improve himself. When he got to hospital, he was sweaty, and his condition was due to exercise and not that of agitation, but his medication was adjusted nonetheless.
[37]. Mr. Boisvert testified that he used cannabis only in high school. He is actually free of it and does not like the feelings it creates. He does not like anything that has control over him. He likes “near” (non-alcoholic or minimal alcohol) beer of which he takes a couple every other day.
[38]. With respect to the DBT program, Mr. Boisvert says that that is “the best thing since I came to hospital”. It helps with his resentment about being in hospital and being under the Review Board’s jurisdiction. He enjoys his apartment through the Good Shepherd Program. He journals and takes mindfulness training to manage his stress and outline his goals.
[39]. With respect to any recalcitrance with the Hamilton Psychiatric Program, Mr. Boisvert states that he did not understand he had to meet with them as much as they required. They gave him the impression that he would get an absolute discharge and he ended up with some misplaced enthusiasm about this. Currently, he is meeting with a new case manager, Victoria Kay, and he likes the assigned doctor.
[40]. When asked about his relationship with “Holly”, he testified that they are thinking about getting married. They are engaged at present. She wants him to be working before they live together. He had not introduced her to the hospital team as he does not want “the drama”. He states that the hospital wants to know everyone’s business. Furthermore, he says Holly is deceptive and does not want to deal with anyone with the hospital or talk to the hospital. Mr. Boisvert does not like talking about his private life.
[41]. Holly does not have a last name. He told his mother about Holly on one occasion, but she told him to shut up.
[42]. At one point Mr. Boisvert wanted to increase the dose of his medication but he learned that the increase might be a big jump. He also stated that some doctor “threatened me” with clozapine.
Submissions
[43]. The hospital and Attorney General maintained their preliminary positions and emphasized that there has not been much change or progress in Mr. Boisvert’s mental state. He has ongoing delusional concerns and lacks insight into their significance and there have been no major protective factors developed in the past reporting year.
[44]. Mr. Boisvert's counsel asserts that Mr. Boisvert appreciates the need and benefit of medication, and he seems to have developed a good rapport with the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia.
[45]. Mr. Schloss submits that active symptoms alone are not necessarily a significant threat. He asks the Board to take into consideration the stress of the ORB and this hearing and the fact that there has been a recent murder in Mr. Boisvert’s apartment building. Mr. Boisvert, he submits, feels he is open with his case manager at the Schizophrenia Program.
[46]. Mr. Schloss concludes that the nature of concern is about Mr. Boisvert’s beliefs, but these have not translated into actions. Beliefs alone do not make him a significant threat. He submits it if the Board finds that he is a significant threat then the substance use clause should be removed.
Decision
[47]. The Board finds that Mr. Boisvert remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The evidence provided by Dr. Prat and as contained in the Hospital Report clearly supports this decision.
[48]. The clinical risk summary contained in the Hospital Report, although lengthy, bears repeating for its completeness:
“Mr. Boisvert has not posed any aggressive behaviour over the past year. He has attended his follow- up appointments with the forensic psychiatry team and the Good Shepherd staff team as requested. He has tried to develop his circle of friends, but found it to be difficult; Mr. Boisvert lacks some social abilities, likely in keeping with the negative symptoms and cognitive impairments related to Schizophrenia, and he has not been receptive to any feedback. He has maintained some relationships with selected forensic co-patients. He has however not engaged in any meaningful activities, from an educational or vocational standpoint, which is a concern for his long-term stability. Mr. Boisvert continues to display ideas of returning to studying in a postgraduate program, or developing some technology related activities (apps, web design). However he likely lacks the skills to do so, and he has limited insight into his cognitive deficit.
An additional concern has been his reluctance to consider feedback from his forensic outpatient case manager and Good Shepherd’s staff, leading to making disparaging comments about them to me, even in their presence. Mr. Boisvert’s perception of his somewhat grandiose abilities has been a longstanding issue, that is unlikely to change. In itself, this does not appear to constitute a serious risk, but his unwillingness to consider staff’s clinical opinion remains of concern. This indicates that if he were to develop similar oppositional attitudes while being no longer subject to ORB dispositions, he will likely discontinue his outpatient follow-up.
More recently Mr. Boisvert developed new delusional ideas. He started wearing a wedding band and indicated that he has been married for many years. When confronted with some inadequacy to his story, he replied that these questions were too personal and he did not want to further answer them. He was not amenable to any reality-based reasoning. He also reported some concerns regarding conspiracy. The anxiety related to the upcoming ORB hearing and his awareness and lack of understanding, that the hospital recommendation is not in favour of an absolute discharge, may be the contributor to his increase in delusional thinking. In themselves, these delusional themes have not increased his risk for the community since his behaviour has remained stable. These are mainly an indicator that he presents and will likely continue to present with a fluctuation of delusional symptoms throughout his life. The goal for the clinical team is to help him gain more insight and awareness, so he develops better control over his preoccupations and so he does not misinterpret others’ behaviour, such as he did at the time of the index offence.”
[49]. The hospital urges the Board to explicitly refer to the hospital’s goals in the hope that that might add some persuasion to Mr. Boisvert to accepting their recommendation.
[50]. The report states:
“In my clinical opinion, in order to ensure a safe transition into the civil psychiatric system, Mr. Boisvert needs to further develop insight into the role of the case managers (he may not develop more insight into the nature of his cognitive deficit, but he can learn to develop a more adequate relationship with his primary care providers) and into the fluctuations of his symptoms. ... He will not likely consider our feedback if these are not opinions shared by the ORB panel members, as part of his recovery aiming for an Absolute Discharge. Finding also some stability through scheduled working hours should also be strongly considered by the ORB in making their final decisions, since it will help to ensure an additional layer of support for him, through maintaining a routine and helping him gain insight into his actual skills.
In my clinical opinion, despite being accepted by a non-forensic outpatient follow-up team, providing case management for individuals with psychosis, this is not sufficient at this time to consider that he no longer meets the threshold for significant threat to public safety. Indeed the lack of cooperation described above alongside the fluctuation of his symptoms and limited insight are indicators of a serious risk to not adhere to the treatment plan if he is no longer subject to ORB Dispositions.
The absence of any aggressive incidents for several years, and his ability to live in the community, do not discount this clinical opinion. In fact, Mr. Boisvert has not developed any major protective factors, other than having stable housing, since he was found NCR. ... Likely, the oppositional attitude he displays at times indicates that he will not adhere to a non-forensic treatment team care plan to continue to mitigate his safety risk in the community. Therefore, Mr. Boisvert needs to remain under a Conditional Discharge.”
[51]. In all the circumstances, the Board finds that the risk posed by Mr. Boisvert is real, as supported by the hospital evidence and that he should remain under a conditional discharge. The Board also agrees, however, that there is no evidence to support that the prohibition clauses for substances or testing for substances or the Young condition are required, and these will not be included in his new conditional discharge. Otherwise, all terms and conditions remain.
DATED this 31st day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board