Re: Uchenna Onochie
ORB File No: 6876
Hearing held on: Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan (via Zoom) Dr. G. Stones Ms. C. Murray Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Onochie Uchenna Counsel: Mr. Michael Schloss (Via Zoom)
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. Lepchuk
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated November 3, 2025)
Introduction
On December 17, 2015, Onochie Uchenna was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
Mr. Uchenna is currently subject to a Detention Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”), dated January 30, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“hospital” or “St. Joseph’s”) with privileges up to and including living in the community of Hamilton in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Pursuant to s.672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, St. Joseph’s notified the Board, by letter dated August 25, 2025, that “Mr. Onochie was readmitted to St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus on August 14, 2025. The duration of the increased restriction on Mr. Onochie’s liberties has exceeded 7 days.”
On September 23, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review the restriction of Mr. Onochie’s liberty for the period from August 14, 2025, to present, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The issue at the hearing was whether the hospital’s decision to increase the restrictions on Mr. Onochie’s liberty was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available in the circumstances both at the time of its onset on August 14, 2025, and throughout its duration to the date of this hearing.
Mr. Onochie was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Michael Schloss, who attended via Zoom.
A Hospital Report dated January 14, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. A Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) Report dated September 18, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 2.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the restriction of Mr. Onochie’s liberty from August 14, 2025, and ongoing was necessary and appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and continues to be so.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia
Cannabis Use Disorder, in remission
Position of the Parties
- At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. Counsel for all parties agreed that the initial restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate; it represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and continued to be so up to the date of the hearing. In submissions the parties maintained these positions.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are set out in the Hospital Report and extracted as follows:
“On December 16, 2015, Uchenna Onochie came before this court for trial on a charge
17th that, on the of January, 2015, he killed Aloy Onochie and thereby committed Second
Degree Murder; contrary to S. 234(1) of the Criminal Code…
There is no dispute with respect to the facts surrounding the death of Aloy Onochie. At
the time of his death, he was 60 years of age and was residing with the defendant, his
18year-old son, in a condominium apartment near the intersection of Finch Avenue and
Yonge Street in Toronto. Is it admitted that he died as a result of multiple stab wounds
that were inflicted by the defendant late on the evening of Saturday, January 17.
Immediately after the infliction of those injuries, the defendant fled from the apartment
and ran to the Finch subway station in his bare feet, clad only in a t-shirt and pajama
pants. He was covered in blood and he was brandishing a knife. When the police arrived,
the defendant refused to drop the knife because, he said, ‘The devil is here.’ Eventually,
the police were able to persuade him to drop the knife and he was taken into custody.”
Background and History
- The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Onochie’s background and history, which need not be repeated here since the Hospital Report has been entered as an Exhibit.
Reasons for Restriction of Liberty and Ongoing Restriction
- The ROL Report provides the rationale and Dr. Prat’s opinion for the original restriction of liberty and ongoing restriction, excerpted as follows:
“Mr. Onochie was readmitted on August 14, 2025, after he informed the team that he was not permitted to return to work due to a pending investigation. Mr. Onochie at that time had limited information and only knew that it was related to him touching a female co-worker’s head while being on break. While I was not present when the decision of admission took place, I have reviewed the reasons leading to this decision and feel that a careful and balanced approach was exercised, justifying the need for him to be monitored and assessed on the inpatient unit.”
- The ROL Report outlines that the treatment team felt that Mr. Onochie was not reporting all the information to the treatment team relating to the incident leading to the investigation by his employer, Amazon. This complicated their ability to perform an adequate assessment of risk to the community. Factors that were considered in readmitting Mr. Onochie to hospital included:
a. Mr. Onochie has engaged in past behaviours that crossed boundaries with female peers;
b. Despite having received one-on-one support, Mr. Onochie sometimes has difficulty identifying when and how he crosses the social boundaries with female peers and fails to identify red flags in his relationships with women;
c. Mr. Onochie initially identified that the female co-worker had been a friend of his for some time. He indicated he tried to establish a romantic relationship with her three years ago, but she declined. When Mr. Onochie reported the incident, he initially failed to disclose that he had asked her out again two weeks prior to the incident; and
d. Mr. Onochie was oblivious to the effect that his behaviour could have on his female peer. The treatment team had no information to confirm or refute his statement that there was no force or coercion involved. The team noted in the ROL Report that Mr. Onochie initially had not been forthcoming about particulars of the incident.
e. Mr. Onochie received a termination letter from his employer a few weeks after the incident after he was already admitted to the hospital. There were no details provided in the termination letter.
f. It was felt by the treatment team that the decision to terminate Mr. Onochie could have been based on serious concerns of his employer, as they had previously known him as a dedicated worker. Mr. Onochie was informed by the team that understanding what led to his behaviour and addressing the issue effectively would help him maintain future employment long-term. However, Mr. Onochie did not understand that a similar situation could occur in the future.
g. After Mr. Onochie was suspended from work, he experienced a few episodes of acute auditory hallucinations that were extremely distressing to him.
h. For a short time, his mother was displeased with the situation and stopped talking to Mr. Onochie.
i. For some time, Mr. Onochie had been expressing a concern about his finances. He had been wanting to find a less expensive apartment or find a roommate. Before receiving the letter of termination, he decided that he would remain in hospital until he could find more affordable accommodations. Once he received the letter of termination, he had to vacate the apartment by the end of November 2025 when his lease would terminate. The treatment team suggested that he may be able to be discharged back to his apartment until the end of his lease in November. However, Mr. Onochie wished to remain in hospital and organize moving and selling his furniture as soon as possible.
j. Mr. Onochie’s mental status remains stable, despite the short-lived acute symptoms. He does not require an adjustment in his medication.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence of Dr. S. Prat, who has been Mr. Onochie’s psychiatrist for at least three years.
Dr. Prat testified that when Mr. Onochie faces stress, he has had increased psychotic symptoms. Historically, there have been a few situations where Mr. Onochie has crossed boundaries with female peers. Considering these factors and those noted above, Dr. Prat and the clinical team requested Mr. Onochie to return to hospital so that they could provide support in case psychotic symptoms developed.
Mr. Onochie worked at Amazon for three years. Amazon has accommodated Mr. Onochie during his employment. He sometimes worked six days per week. When the allegation of touching the female co-worker’s hair and her subsequent complain arose, Mr. Onochie was asked to not return to the worksite. The clinical team concluded that there must be a significant reason that Mr. Onochie was asked by his employer to not return to the worksite.
The clinical team has requested clarification from Amazon regarding the incident that led to Mr. Onochie’s termination. To date, Amazon has not responded.
Dr. Prat opined that Mr. Onochie likely minimized the stress of the termination from Amazon. On a few occasions since his readmission, Mr. Onochie has been distressed by voices. Mr. Onochie said to the treatment team that he has more coping strategies to deal with voices when he is at home. The clinical team will be reinforcing his coping skills while he is in the hospital.
Dr. Prat testified that Mr. Onochie, even prior to his readmission, had been considering giving up his apartment and being readmitted to hospital because he wanted to find less expensive housing. Once he was admitted to the hospital, he was granted privileges to help him effect a move from his apartment. The organization of the move was chaotic and, therefore, Dr. Prat asked Mr. Onochie to make arrangements for the move in the presence of staff. Mr. Onochie moved his furniture out of his apartment on September 22, 2025.
The clinical team suggested that Mr. Onochie might be able to return to his apartment because he had two months left on his lease. However, Mr. Onochie rejected this possibility.
Mr. Onochie cannot be discharged without housing. Mr. Onochie is not requesting to be discharged. He is very compliant with the admission.
As for Mr. Onochie’s care plan, Dr. Prat testified that he is still unclear why Mr. Onochie continues to have difficulties with violating personal boundaries. Dr. Prat stated that this doesn’t seem to arise in the context of psychotic symptoms. Mr. Onochie still has auditory hallucinations almost daily, but he is not delusional.
Dr. Prat testified that Mr. Onochie suffers from a poor ability to read social cues. Mr. Onochie does not understand that there is a spectrum of behaviour between touching someone’s hair and seeking someone’s consent to touch. When Mr. Onochie gets excited about a potential relationship, he loses the ability to remind himself about social cues and the need to respect personal boundaries. Dr. Prat stated that he has therefore referred Mr. Onochie to Dr. Sheridan (a psychologist with expertise in this area) to see if there is something that the clinical team is missing, rather than just sending Mr. Onochie back to more of the same programs he has already completed.
Dr. Prat testified that he would like to see Mr. Onochie work on issues he has with impulsivity. He would also like to see Mr. Onochie spend more time in a structured program in the community.
Dr. Prat testified that the clinical team needs more information regarding the risk of sexual violence particularly due to previous propositioning of female co-tenants for sex and boundary violations in September 2021 when living at Emmaus Place as outlined on page 40 of the Hospital Report. At that time, Mr. Onochie was brought into hospital for assessment and to manage the risk of psychological harm to the public.
Submissions
- At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties confirmed that there was a joint submission that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time the restriction was imposed and continued to be so.
Analysis and Conclusions
The Board finds that a significant increase in the restriction on Mr. Onachie’s liberty has taken place, pursuant to the factors set out in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v MLC (2010 ONCA 843), as well as Regina v Campbell (2018 ONCA 141). From December 1, 2023, to August 14, 2025, Mr. Onochie was living in the community in an independent apartment. He was readmitted to hospital on August 14, 2025, where he has since remained. The ongoing hospital admission is a significant departure from his liberty norm to which he had become accustomed.
The initial restriction of liberty arose as a result of Mr. Onochie losing his job due to touching a female co-worker. Mr. Onochie did not provide all the information relating to the incident, which complicated the hospital’s ability to perform an adequate risk assessment to determine his risk to the public. Mr. Onochie has a history of crossing boundaries with female peers. Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that this is the case again. Although the hospital has not yet obtained full information from Amazon regarding any investigation into Mr. Onochie’s behaviour, Amazon previously knew Mr. Onochie as a dedicated worker. Mr. Onochie’s behaviour must have raised significant concerns for him to be terminated from his employment.
The hospital’s evidence is clear that the initial restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk to the public.
With respect to the ongoing restriction of liberty, Mr. Onochie has experienced signs of anxiety, though he reports he is coping well since terminated from his employment. After his suspension from employment, he experienced some periods of acute auditory hallucinations, which he described as extremely distressing. Because of the reasons for his readmission, the treatment team feels ongoing monitoring is required. The ROL Report points out that Mr. Onochie is a person who tends to be quite affected by feedback that is less than positive. Therefore, it is important for the treatment team to be attentive to any further risk of destabilization of Mr. Onochie’s mental status.
For Mr. Onochie, destabilization is linked to his stress level. The clinical team needs an opportunity to explore the underlying reasons for repeated difficulties with crossing boundaries.
Regardless of the treatment team’s determination that Mr. Onochie requires ongoing admission, he has stated that he wants to stay in hospital until he finds a more affordable place to live. He was adamant that he wanted to stay in hospital to organize selling and moving his furniture. He dismissed any opportunity to be discharged back to his apartment until the end of his lease, which terminates at the end of November.
In the process of organizing moving and selling of furniture, the hospital identified ongoing difficulties with managing timelines, expectations from others, and making some impulsive requests. Mr. Onochie was unable to understand his limitations and believed that solving things quickly would alleviate his distress.
The hospital has been clear that Mr. Onochie requires ongoing detention in hospital to manage his risk of harm to others. The Board agrees.
The Board accepts joint submission of the parties. Specifically, the Board unanimously finds that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate for the safety of the public and it represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed, and it continues to be so.
DATED this 3rd day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. C. Murray Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board