Ontario Review Board
Re: Joven Payumo
ORB File No: 5655
Hearing held on: Thursday, September 4, 2025
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Loza Ms. M. den Haan Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Joven Payumo Counsel: Mr. J. Richer
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. A. Findlay
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 4, 2025)
Introduction:
On July 7, 2010, the accused, Joven Payumo, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault with a weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Payumo is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 4, 2024, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC” or the “Hospital”) with privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On September 4, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre to conduct Mr. Payumo’s annual review hearing. Mr. Payumo attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Jean Richer. Also in attendance was a Tagalog Interpreter to assist Mr. Payumo at his hearing and Ms. Stephanie Rogerson, Mr. Payumo’s housing case coordinator from Developmental Services Leeds & Grenville.
A Hospital Report dated June 26, 2025 was marked as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Payumo poses a significant risk to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial recommendations to the Board. On behalf of the Hospital, Dr. Alabi submitted that the existing Detention Disposition remains the necessary and appropriate Disposition with no changes.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the recommendation of the Hospital and noted an error in last year’s Reasons at paragraph one. The only index offence is assault with a weapon, and this is correct in the Disposition.
Counsel for Mr. Payumo stated that Mr. Payumo is a low functioning individual with limitations, although he is happy and does not understand nuances of change in his life. Even though Mr. Payumo says that he does not want anything to be changed, Mr. Richer noted that he was obligated to make submissions with respect to any remaining threat posed by Mr. Payumo.
Mr. Richer submitted that even though his client is happy and does not wish for any change, the Board is required to consider if the incidents in the Hospital Report are sufficient to meet the standard of a significant threat to public safety.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Payumo presents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board determined, however, that his risk can be properly managed in the coming year with a Conditional Discharge with terms and conditions as specified in the Disposition.
Index Offence:
- The circumstances surrounding the Index Offence are taken from the Hospital Report as follows:
“On April 29, 2010, it is alleged that Mr. Payumo approached the victim, and ‘punched’ the victim in the left side of the neck while holding a pair of scissors in his hand, therefore stabbing the victim in the neck. When officers spoke to Mr. Payumo, he stated he was the one the officer was looking for. Mr. Payumo described being slapped first and then he attacked. A second time he was asked, he apparently responded he ‘did not know’ whether he had assaulted the victim.”
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. Payumo’s current diagnoses as set in the Hospital Report are:
Schizophrenia - Undifferentiated Type
Substance Use Disorder: solvents - in sustained remission
Gout with first metatarsal arthritic changes
Chronic renal failure - mild: under care of a nephrologist
Metabolic Syndrome
Autism Spectrum Disorder - intellectual impairment
Background
The Hospital Report in evidence provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Payumo’s personal history, mental health history, as well as his course in Hospital and in the community. It is unnecessary to reproduce the information in these Reasons, but the following facts are of note.
Mr. Payumo was born in the Philippines and is currently 53 years old. Mr. Payumo left school before completing his first year of high school. His mother moved to Canada in 1989 to look for work, and Mr. Payumo remained in the Philippines in the care of his older sister. His mother reported that Mr. Payumo has never worked and that she sent him money on a regular basis.
Mr. Payumo’s mother reported that her son began hearing voices in 1989 and was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 1993. Mr. Payumo came to Canada in 2004 when he was in his early thirties. Mr. Payumo has limited facility with the English language. He has had a history of drug and alcohol abuse as well as solvent abuse while in the Philippines.
Mr. Payumo had several hospitalizations after moving to Canada. The Hospital Report summarizes his psychiatric history as follows:
“In summary, this history indicates that Mr. Payumo has a history of schizophrenia (undifferentiated subtype), which has led to aggressive and dangerous behaviour in the past including physical aggression and setting on fire. He had a response to antipsychotic treatment, with which he does comply and is currently on Clozapine with some residual symptoms of his schizophrenia persisting.”
Mr. Payumo has no criminal record prior to the Index Offence.
As noted at paragraph 52 of last year’s Reasons,
Mr. Payumo has been under the ORB since 2010, all under the purview of a Detention Order. He has resided in the community in a group home setting since 2019, with occasional behaviour issues which could be ascribed to his multiple needs (including difficulties with change in routine, an inability to communicate generally and, specifically, in Tagalog, per his ASD and associated intellectual disability) and has been managed within a 24-hour supervised specialized care home. He has a low base rate for physical violence, and occasional symptoms related to his psychotic illness that have no clear connection to his behaviour nor risk for violence, and furthermore, have been managed very well with antipsychotic medication for quite some time.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the Hospital Report and through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Alabi, Mr. Payumo’s attending psychiatrist. Dr. Alabi took over Mr. Payumo’s care in January of 2025 and stated that he relies on the Hospital Report for prior information during the reporting year.
Dr. Alabi testified that on August 29, 2025, Mr. Payumo relocated from one 24-hour supervised housing placement to another. The new residence is a detached three-bedroom home occupied by two other forensic patients. Satff that supported Mr. Payumo at his previous residence have followed him to his current residence. Because of the recent move, the treatment team is monitoring to ensure that Mr. Payumo’s mental state remains stable. For this reason, Dr. Alabi suggests that there should be further time before any change to Mr. Payumo’s Disposition.
Over the reporting year, Mr. Payumo was noted to occasionally respond to auditory hallucinations. On one occasion, a medication increase at bedtime was required to settle Mr. Payumo. Had the medication not been given, Dr. Alabi stated he is unsure what would have happened. There has been no aggressive behaviour, although in Dr. Alabi’s opinion this is due to assertive follow-up and the diligence of group home staff and the forensic outreach team.
Mr. Payumo is regularly tested for substance use and has had no positive tests over the reporting year. This has helped him to maintain a relatively stable mental state. In Dr. Alabi’s opinion, without Mr. Payumo’s current placement, support levels, and forensic outreach support to ensure that his intermittent auditory hallucinations are managed assertively, including with increased medication, incidents during the year would have resulted in violent behaviour as in the past at the time of the Index Offence.
In addition to his major mental illness, Mr. Payumo suffers from physical ailments including kidney issues. He also has intellectual deficits and a language barrier.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Alabi testified that Mr. Payumo is currently treated with clozapine. Despite this, he still experiences breakthrough symptoms of his illness.
Stress can affect patients with schizophrenia and worsen the illness. In Dr. Alabi’s opinion, structure helps to reduce stress for Mr. Payumo, and he is currently in a highly structured environment. The residence is closely supervised, and when Mr. Payumo is outside the residence he always has 1:1 staff support. Medication is administered in the residence and adherence is closely monitored. If Mr. Payumo were to stop taking his medication, there would be a risk of violence.
Part of the logic to maintaining a Detention Order Disposition is that it enables the Hospital to direct where Mr. Payumo resides. In addition, with a Detention Order versus a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Alabi stated it is easy to bring Mr. Payumo back to Hospital quickly if there are noted break-through symptoms.
Although last year’s Reasons indicate that Mr. Payumo pushes boundaries and tests authority when he can, no incidents of this sort were brought to Dr. Alabi’s attention this year.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Payumo, Dr. Alabi agreed that most, but not all, of the risk factors are static ones. Mr. Payumo’s mental deficits will not change. The drug use risk was a historical reference from when Mr. Payumo resided in the Philippines, based on hearsay reports from an aunt in the Philippines speaking to Mr. Payumo’s mother who informed the Hospital. While Mr. Payumo has been under the supervision of the ORB he has not attempted to use substances.
Dr. Alabi agreed that the Index Offence occurred 15 years ago, and the Hospital Report notes at page 51 that Mr. Payumo’s risk of violence is stated to be low. At page 42 of the Hospital Report, it notes that Mr. Payumo’s risk of serious harm is low and risk of imminent violence was low in 2017. Subsequent evaluations have shown no change to these risk factors, which remain low.
While in Hospital, Mr. Payumo was noted to have punched a wall, a lamp post, and push a staff member once for which he apologized, but all of these events occurred in the past. Dr. Alabi noted that pushing someone can pose significant risk as they could be hurt severely, even if that was not the intended consequence.
The Hospital Report notes at page 70 that Mr. Payumo was readmitted in June 2022 after aggressive behaviour in his group home. At page 63 of the Hospital Report, it states that Mr. Payumo raised his fist to a staff member when denied chocolates in 2019 or 2020. He was re-hospitalized for approximately one month after these incidents. He threw a remote control for the TV in 2023 which broke the TV.
Historically, each readmission has been voluntary. Mr. Payumo has not declined to return when asked to do so. In response to Mr. Richer’s suggestion that a Detention Order had not been required in 15 years to bring Mr. Payumo back to Hospital, Dr. Alabi testified that Mr. Payumo’s last readmission was in circumstances where his violent behaviour could not be mitigated by group home staff who deemed it was unsafe for him to remain in the home. Staff was able to persuade Mr. Payumo to come voluntarily to Hospital. Mr. Payumo still suffers from residual psychotic symptoms, however, and in combination with his intellectual disability, this could stand in the way of his voluntary consent to be hospitalized. Dr. Alabi agreed that these circumstances have not prevented voluntary readmission in the past.
In Dr. Alabi’s opinion, Mr. Payumo is particularly susceptible to stress. To prevent further stress for Mr. Payumo and minimize the effect of the residence change, familiar staff continue his care at his new residence. Staff are non-forensic staff, although they have forensic outreach support.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Alabi testified that Mr. Payumo’s current residence is the best residence for him. He is unsure if Mr. Payumo could remain at his current residence if he were not under the jurisdiction of the ORB.
In Dr. Alabi’s opinion, there is benefit to the Hospital’s involvement with Mr. Payumo’s care, and careful planning would be required if Mr. Payumo were released from the jurisdiction of the ORB. The treatment team has not explored what the options would be for Mr. Payumo if he were to receive an Absolute Discharge. This is because Mr. Payumo has a serious mental illness, learning disabilities, and his psychotic symptoms are resistant to treatment. As a rule, the forensic treatment team would identify a community mental health provider. An ACT team would need to be in place to transition Mr. Payumo’s care, and the treatment team would have to ensure that Mr. Payumo could remain in his current housing and that there would be funding for this. In the event of an Absolute Discharge, the Hospital can provide transition of care for up to one year.
Dr. Alabi is confident that Mr. Payumo’s risk cannot be managed without clozapine, which is the treatment-resistant schizophrenia protocol. Mr. Payumo was adherent to clozapine at the time of the Index Offence.
In Dr. Alabi’s opinion, decompensation in Mr. Payumo’s mental state and risk of violence could lead to a level of behaviour that would be criminal in nature and could meet the threshold of psychological or physical harm. In the circumstances of the last admission to Hospital which involved Mr. Payumo throwing a remote control, breaking objects and smashing a TV in 2023, Dr. Alabi stated that his patient could have been criminally charged. Mr. Payumo has episodes of aggression even while his illness is clinically stable.
Stephanie Rogerson, Mr. Payumo’s case coordinator from Developmental Services Leeds & Grenville, provided helpful information to the panel. Mr. Payumo’s housing is a house in Leeds & Grenville run by a private landlord in the community. The facility is the landlord’s own home.
Residents live semi-independently and receive help in the community. Mr. Payumo has a lease at this location, but he is not “stuck” if he wants to be in the Hospital or to change residences. If given an Absolute Discharge, this would still be his home, and it would be his choice whether to remain. Developmental Services Leeds & Grenville would follow and support Mr. Payumo for as long as he wanted them to be involved. Mr. Payumo has funding for 24-hour care.
Medications at the residence are kept in a locked cabinet, and at the correct time, staff administer them. Medication is not self-administered by residents. Even if Mr. Payumo were to decide that he did not wish to take medication, Developmental Services Leeds & Grenville would still support him. The current residence does not refer to itself as a group home but rather, “their home.”
No further evidence was presented.
Final Submissions
Dr. Alabi maintained the Hospital’s position that Mr. Payumo remains a significant threat to public safety and the existing Detention Disposition without changes is the necessary and appropriate Disposition at the present time. Mr. Payumo has recently moved, and it is important for the treatment team to see that he has settled well and manages stressors over the year.
Counsel for the Attorney General conceded that it is a difficult case and Mr. Payumo is “close to the line” when it comes to meeting the test for significant threat to public safety. She submitted that the panel could make a positive finding that significant threat still exists based on the expert evidence of significant schizophrenia including residual symptoms, and the fact that Mr. Payumo is treated with clozapine, the last resort medication. Mr. Payumo still experiences breakthrough symptoms and auditory hallucinations, and his illness and recovery are fragile. He does well because of the structure provided by his community residence, the Hospital, Dr. Alabi, and the treatment team.
Counsel for Mr. Payumo submitted that Mr. Payumo is happy with his situation and likes his residence. The legal test, however, is not what is the best residence for him. In Mr. Richer’s submission, although his client is happy and not seeking change, Mr. Payumo does not present a significant risk to public safety.
Mr. Richer noted that the support of Ms. Rogerson and Developmental Services Leeds & Grenville is important for Mr. Payumo as he cannot function alone and has never done so. Mr. Payumo is currently in 24-hour supervised housing and therefore does not require the oversight of the ORB and the Hospital. The Hospital placed Mr. Payumo with two co-tenants. There are three non-forensic workers working in the residence, and they are not concerned with significant risk posed by Mr. Payumo. They believe it is safe for him to be there with them.
Although there have been some incidents of concern over a 15-year period (five to six incidents which have not been significantly serious in Mr. Richer’s submission), the 2017 evaluation in the Hospital Report is that Mr. Payumo presents a low risk to public safety and this has not changed.
In conclusion, counsel for Mr. Payumo noted that if the Board were to find that there is still a significant risk to public safety, Mr. Payumo is happy where he is.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that Mr. Payumo continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in the Winko decision.
The evidence is that Mr. Payumo has a major mental illness with some breakthrough symptoms despite medication adherence, and Mr. Payumo has intellectual limitations. The panel accepts the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Alabi that it is important for the treatment team to closely monitor Mr. Payumo’s mental state following the stress of a recent move. The panel also accepts Dr. Alabi’s evidence that Mr. Payumo is subject to act out on any stress he suffers. We note, however, that the staff members with whom Mr. Payumo has a relationship have also moved to the new housing to provide continuity of care and minimize the impact of any stress on him.
The panel greatly appreciates the evidence provided by Ms. Rogerson about Mr. Payumo’s current housing placement. Mr. Payumo has never lived on his own and is not capable of doing so. While it is important that Mr. Payumo reside in housing with significant support, there is no indication that, if granted a Conditional Discharge, Mr. Payumo would leave his current housing where he is happy. Ms. Rogerson’s evidence was clear that the housing is happy to have him stay as long as he wishes to do so. His current housing is available to him whether he is under the jurisdiction of the ORB or not.
The panel agrees with the submissions of the Hospital that Mr. Payumo will require support from the Hospital to ensure a successful transition during the treatment year to minimize the effects of stress.
Mr. Payumo does not understand or fear the ORB and the oversight of the Board does not influence his actions in any way. Mr. Payumo has had a very good year without any readmissions or incidents of violence. Dr. Alabi testified that one of the reasons for recommending a continuation of the Detention Order is to facilitate return of Mr. Payumo to Hospital if required. The evidence is that historically, Mr. Payumo has always returned voluntarily when asked. The Court of Appeal noted in Valdez, Re, 2018 ONCA 657 that the ease of returning an individual to hospital will not always justify a Detention Order as the necessary and appropriate Disposition. The panel notes that the risk assessment in the Hospital Report remains unchanged from the 2017 finding of low risk scores.
Based on the evidence presented, the panel finds that a Conditional Discharge is the least onerous, least restrictive Disposition to manage Mr. Payumo’s risk.
As noted by his counsel, the threshold test is not whether Mr. Payumo is content with his current situation, or whether he is in the best residence for him. It is not whether it is easier for the Hospital to return him in case of decompensation. In Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, Justice Tulloch reviewed the relevant test, in paragraph 37:
"The threshold for significant risk is “onerous”: Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (3d) 209, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665; Pellett (Re), 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21."
The treatment team is therefore encouraged to proactively investigate options for community treatment care for Mr. Payumo over the coming year in order that he may progress through the forensic system.
We have taken into consideration the factors at section 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs in coming to our unanimous finding.
DATED this 4^th^ day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. den Haan Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board