Ontario Review Board
Re: Michelle Harris
ORB File No: 7459
Hearing held on: Monday, September 22, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. M. Kalia Dr. S. Swaminath Hon. A. Sosna Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Michelle Harris Counsel: Ms. C.E. Currie
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Pearce
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated November 3, 2025)
Introduction
On November 27, 2018, Ms. Michelle Harris was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of arson, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code"). Ms. Harris is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated June 7, 2024, detaining her at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”), with privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On September 22, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to ss. 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Ms. Harris was in attendance and was represented by her counsel, Ms. Currie.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Dr. Pearce advised that the hospital recommendation was that there be no change to the current Detention Disposition and that the two restrictions of liberties under review where necessary and appropriate from their onset. The first being so to its conclusion and the current one remaining necessary and appropriate to the date of this hearing. Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Crown, supported the hospital recommendation and position vis-à-vis the two restrictions of liberties as did Ms. Currie, on behalf of Ms. Harris. Ms. Currie added that the ongoing presence of significant risk was conceded.
Background and Index Offences
Ms. Harris’ background and personal history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated at length in these Reasons. Ms. Harris is a 48-year-old woman born in Windsor, Ontario. As a child, Ms. Harris was taken into the custody of the Children's Aid Society and moved between several different foster homes. Following an assessment in Brampton, Ms. Harris was transferred to the Youthdale Treatment Centre where she resided for approximately four years. Ms. Harris has a high school education. While living in the Toronto area, she worked at a Winners retail store.
Since 2005, Ms. Harris had resided in subsidized housing in Scarborough. She was supported by the Metro East Assertive Community Treatment Team.
Ms. Harris has a significant history of substance use but denies that she has ever had a substance abuse problem. She also has a history of non-compliance with her prescribed antipsychotic medication. She has a lengthy admission history to psychiatric hospitals which began in 1996. Those admissions were primarily related to disorganized and agitated behaviour with psychotic symptoms and occasionally suicidal ideation. Almost all her psychiatric admissions were involuntary under the Mental Health Act. In the period immediately preceding the commission of the index offences she was refusing to attend her appointments with the CMHA and noncompliant with her prescribed clozapine. It was reported that on July 26, 2017, Ms. Harris discharged herself from involvement with the ACT team and was noted to be actively psychotic.
The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“The following was summarized from the Synopsis for Plea by George Hempen dated September 10, 2017 as noted in the Court Report dated June 11, 2018 and authored by Dr. Ulrich and Dr. Wilkie:
Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Doucet were a married couple who resided in Scarborough. The couple and Ms. Harris were not previously acquainted. Mr. Sweeney found Ms. Harris smoking on his front porch two weeks prior to the index. offence. Over the following two weeks, Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Doucet found various items floating in their swimming pool on different dates. These items included a box of French fries, a dead rabbit, a pork chop, and a Bible with the words "Michelle 2017" written on one of the pages.
On September 10, 2017, at approximately 12:45 AM, Mr. Sweeney and Ms. Doucet heard a commotion in their backyard and they found Ms. Harris standing beside their storage shed, which was engulfed in flames. Ms. Harris appeared to be attempting to accelerate the fire. She attempted to leave the scene via the nearby cemetery, however, Mr. Sweeney pursued her and restrained her in the cemetery until police arrived and arrested her. The fire department was able to bring the fire under control and the estimated damage to the shed and its contents was approximately $10,000.”
Current Diagnosis
- Schizoaffective Disorder
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Pearce advised that Ms. Harris remains on a general forensic unit, under the care of Dr. Wong. Dr. Pearce was her outpatient doctor this past year. Ms. Harris experienced a deterioration of her mental state attributable to issues with her menstrual cycle. In the coming weeks, two perimenopausal consults are scheduled to assess the appropriateness of hormonal treatments. The intent is to keep her in hospital until the impact of her menstrual cycle on her mental state is sorted and to keep her well. Stabilization of Ms. Harris’ mental state is essential to avoid the loss of her approved community housing.
Ms. MacDonald referenced the Disposition recommendation at page 50 of the Hospital Report which speaks to a Conditional Discharge and asked why this has been changed. Dr. Pearce responded that Ms. Harris has for the most part, had a good year. However, marked changes in her presentation have necessitated a more assertive approach which includes the ability to return and admit her to hospital as required. He noted that in July of 2025, Ms. Harris was reluctant to return to hospital and as a result a Detention Disposition is required.
Responding to questions from Ms. Currie, Dr. Pearce agreed that Ms. Harris’ general health is good. However, changes in her mental state attributable to her menstrual cycle are being examined. It was noted that Ms. Harris has worked with psychologist, Dr. Saunders, for the past three to four years, which continues to be helpful. Dr. Saunders was present at today’s hearing.
Dr. Pearce agreed that when mentally stable, Ms. Harris maintains family contact, enjoys the support of friends and engages in many activities.
Responding to questions from the panel vis-à-vis Ms. Harris’ recent setbacks, Dr. Pearce noted that these are the first instances (June July) that these have to do with her menstrual cycle rather than other stressors in her life. Another panelist noted that Ms. Harris’ psychological assessment states that she meets criteria for intellectual disability disorder as described at page 42 of the Hospital Report. Dr. Pearce agreed, adding that that diagnosis should have been specified on page 1. The diagnosis of intellectual developmental disorder will be added to Ms. Harris’ list of current diagnoses. Dr. Pearce agreed that, given Ms. Harris’ cognitive deficits, her incapacity to consent to treatment might be enduring even when she is psychiatrically stable. However, Dr. Pearce does not believe cognitive deficits greatly affect her response to treatment or insight issues.
Ms. Harris is doing well on her current psychotropic medications. Dr. Wong has recently prescribed birth control pills, but it remains premature to see how effective these will be. Ms. Harris continues to build coping skills through her ongoing psychological supports.
Closing Observations
Dr. Pearce noted that Ms. Harris is doing well and thanked her for attending this hearing as she was initially reluctant to do so. Ms. MacDonald congratulated Ms. Harris on a good year, adding that it was unfortunate that biological issues have impacted her mental state through no fault of her own. Ms. Currie had nothing further to add.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Ms. Harris continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The Board unanimously finds that Ms. Harris continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Pearce that Ms. Harris continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report, particularly the Summary contained therein at page 50. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below as it foresees what would occur if Ms. Harris was to receive an Absolute Discharge from this Board:
Absent a Disposition of the Board, she would likely migrate to unsuitable housing and discontinue her medication and involvement with care providers. Within days or weeks, psychotic symptoms would re-surface and she would become increasingly hostile and aggressive. In those circumstances, there is a real risk of serious physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public.
The Board therefore accepts, following an independent scrutiny of the evidence that Ms. Harris remains a significant threat to public safety. This panel is satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Ms. Harris will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Ms. Harris continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Ms. Harris’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Ms. Harris provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Ms. Harris needs, the Board was attentive to the Hospital’s efforts to maintain the subsidized community housing that she has lived in for the past 20 years. A Detention Disposition was necessary to enable Ms. Harris’ return and admission to hospital this past July as she was resistant to do so. Since that time, the impact of Ms. Harris’ menstrual cycle on her mental state is being assessed. The objective being to ensure her mental state has returned to its baseline when she is discharged to return to her community residence. This prudent approach is intended to ensure that her approved housing in not put at risk.
(c) Restriction of Liberties
ROL #1: An unexpected deterioration of Ms. Harris’ mental state occurred on June 16th, 2025, when as described at page 44 of the Hospital Report: She suddenly and unexpectedly presented as irritable, guarded, and withdrawn. She admitted to an increase in psychotic symptoms and was unable to contract for her safety. It was noted that Ms. Harris’ menstrual cycle had begun two days prior. She stabilized relatively quickly in hospital with the addition of 2mg of risperidone and was subsequently discharged, returning to her community residence on June 26th.
ROL #2: A similar pattern of deterioration to ROL #1 was noted on July 15th. Ms. Harris was again admitted and on this second occasion stated she did not want to remain in hospital. It was noted that she began to menstruate within 48 hours of re-admission. Within days her mental state stabilized absent any changes to her psychotropic regimen.
While accorded some passes, the most liberal being community passes, she remains an in-patient, as at the date of this hearing. The rationale for the ongoing admission is to enable the stabilization of her mental state and prevent the reemergence of auditory hallucinations that precipitated her return to hospital in June and in July as reemergence of those positive symptoms may jeopardize her subsidized community housing. Perimenopausal consults are upcoming to determine the therapeutic value of hormone treatment and of the recently prescribed birth control pills.
As a result, this panel of the Board determines that the above noted restrictions of liberties were necessary and appropriate from their onset. The first being so to its conclusion and the ongoing one remaining necessary and appropriate to the date of this hearing.
Conclusion
The Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Ms. Harris poses to the safety of the public while still meeting her needs, continues to be a Detention Disposition.
In arriving at this finding, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Pearce and is satisfied that a detention disposition is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Ms. Harris’s mental condition, her reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 3rd day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board