Ontario Review Board
Re: Timothy Firman
ORB File No: 4767
Hearing held on: Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Via Zoom Video Conference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. G. Stones Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Timothy Firman Counsel: Mr. D.J. Brodsky
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated November 6, 2025)
Introduction
On April 24, 2007, Timothy Firman was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Firman is subject to a Disposition detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge, with the level of supervision required to be determined by the treatment team.
On July 22, 2025, the hospital notified the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) that Mr. Firman had absconded on July 21, 2025. On September 7, 2025, the Board was advised that Mr. Firman was transferred from the FGUC (a general unit) to the FATU (a secure unit). On October 20, 2025, a Restriction of Liberty hearing was held virtually from the hospital. Mr. Firman attended the beginning of the hearing but chose to leave partway through. As Mr. Firman had provided instructions to his counsel, the Board made an order permitting the hearing to continue in his absence.
The Board had before it as Exhibit 1 a Restriction of Liberty Report dated October 2, 2025, and Exhibit 2 the Hospital Report dated December 5, 2024, filed at the patient’s last annual hearing. The Board also had before it correspondence including a Campbell letter and notifications regarding absconding and restrictions.
In preliminary positions the hospital advanced that the transfer to FATU was justified and the least restrictive and least onerous measure that could be taken in the circumstances. The hospital also was requesting that the exception to the permitted use of cannabis added at the last annual hearing should be removed. Crown counsel agreed but wished to hear the evidence regarding the cannabis clause. Mr. Brodsky, for the patient, agreed that the transfer to FATU was appropriate but wished to reserve his position regarding both the ongoing restriction and the possible removal of the cannabis clause. Mr. Brodsky indicated that his client’s next annual hearing was on January 21, 2026, which would offer a more suitable time to deal with the cannabis restriction. After hearing the evidence and submissions, the Board concluded that the Restriction of Liberty was necessary and appropriate and continued to be so. The Board declined to remove the cannabis exception at this time.
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. S. Woodside, the patient’s psychiatrist during the stay in FGUC, testified. Dr. Woodside had conferred with Dr. Eid who now supervised the patient.
Dr. Woodside noted that the circumstances regarding the restriction were well set out in Exhibit 1.
Dr. Woodside testified about Mr. Firman absconding in July of 2025 until July 23, 2025, during which time Mr. Firman consumed cocaine. Mr. Firman had absconded in May 2025. An AWOL had also occurred in October of 2024 which lasted about two and a half weeks. During the October AWOL, Mr. Firman used both cannabis and cocaine.
Dr. Woodside described Mr. Firman’s current demeanour as unengaged, uncooperative and dismissive. Mr. Firman had been informed that to progress he must attend three specific groups. He went to one session for one group and left early. Mr. Firman does not wish to discuss matters with his team. Mr. Firman, age 47, continues to feel he is being treated unfairly. He feels he should be in the community and free to use cocaine.
Dr. Woodside informed the Board that the exception regarding cannabis was introduced in hopes that it would cause Mr. Firman to move away from crack cocaine but that plan has not worked out. Mr. Firman has not used cannabis for a year.
Mr. Firman’s view is that crack cocaine “sharpens him up”. Yet another AWOL had occurred in May 2025. The May AWOL was planned as was the most recent one this past July.
The transfer to FATU was precipitated by the AWOLs, the consumption of crack cocaine and Mr. Firman indicating he would continue to use crack, that he did not have a mental disorder, and that he would not engage in programming.
There was no evidence that his last use of cannabis caused changes to his mental state. Dr. Woodside noted that allowing the cannabis exception was relatively rare at CAMH, and the hope of a harm reduction path had not been borne out. Dr. Woodside was concerned that cannabis could be a gateway to cocaine, that prolonged use of cannabis could adversely impact Mr. Firman’s mental state, and that cannabis, in combination with cocaine, could be harmful to Mr. Firman’s mental state.
At present, Mr. Firman is only permitted yard privileges as he refuses to participate in programming.
Mr. Firman does not do well in groups. One on one counseling had been initiated but stopped when the therapist became unwell.
Dr. Woodside described Mr. Firman as his own worst enemy. Mr. Firman often displays self-defeating behaviour. Mr. Firman tends towards hopelessness. He focuses on the present. He has no goals or positive supports in the community that may motivate him. Mr. Firman has some intellectual limitations that may be an obstacle to having a plan to succeed. Mr. Firman has no goals that do not involve the consumption of illegal substances. Mr. Firman is not a deep thinker.
None of his AWOLs have involved violence or aggression.
Mr. Firman has been offered medication to address cravings but declines them. Mr. Firman has ADHD, but its treatment is not possible as the usual response is to administer a stimulant which is not recommended in his case.
Final submissions mirrored opening positions. Mr. Brodsky noted that cannabis has not been consumed for some time and formed no part of recent AWOLs.
Analysis
It is hard to be critical of the move to a more secure setting. Frequent AWOLs and repeated chronic cocaine use, coupled with disengagement and dismissiveness, did not leave the hospital much choice. In so holding, the Board is aware that Mr. Firman has been a long-term patient and, as the doctor acknowledged, there is a concern about institutionalization. Regarding cannabis, its inclusion as an exception was well motivated. Unfortunately, the desired harm reduction pathway has not materialized but Mr. Firman has not consumed cannabis for about a year. So, while there was a good reason to allow the exception, the continued inclusion of the exception has no practical benefit at this time. On the other hand, there is no compelling case to remove it, at least for the present. It may be that a further discussion can address this issue at the upcoming annual hearing. The Board is not convinced that the cannabis clause removal would result in an increase of risk to the public. Finally, the Board is not convinced that its removal would result in a disposition that would be the least onerous and least restrictive order that could be made.
The Board notes that the insertion of new counsel for Mr. Firman represents a potential opportunity to try to have Mr. Firman understand his own obligations to work with the hospital so that he can move ahead.
Accordingly, the Restriction of Liberty was and continues to be necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive course that the hospital could take, however, the cannabis exception clause will remain for now.
DATED this 6th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. M.D. Segal Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board