Re: Elvis Canonizado
ORB File No: 8839
Hearing held on: September 22, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672 48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. Phillipe Capelle
Members: Dr. Sam Swaminath
Dr. Monik Kalia
Hon. Alexander Sosna
Mr. Steve Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Elvis Canonizado
Counsel: Ms. Jocelyne Boissonneault
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. Anne Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. Nancy Macdonald
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated: November 6, 2025)
Please see underlined change to original reasons made November 12, 2025: Ms. Marshall’s name has been corrected to read “Anne Marshall.”
Introduction:
On February 22, 2025 Mr. Canonizado was arrested and detained at the Central East Detention Centre charged with the following Criminal Code offences; Threatening Death, Possession of a Weapon Dangerous to the Public Peace, Breach of Court Order, Breach of Undertaking x3, Failing to Appear in Court x3, and Obstruct Police. All the offences are alleged to have occurred between November 15, 2024, and February 22, 2025.
The Threatening and Weapon offences occurred on November 15, 2024. Mr. Canonizado threatened to kill a female while waiving a bladed tool at her, while she was waiting for a bus in downtown Oshawa. As a result of those offences, Mr. Canonizado was additionally charged with breaching a Peace Bond to keep the Peace and be of Good Behaviour issued by the court two weeks earlier on October 31, 2024. On those offences he was granted release from custody upon entering an undertaking with terms.
Thereafter, through February 2025, Mr. Canonizado was rearrested and released on additional undertakings alleging that on multiple occasions he breached his release orders for failing to attend for fingerprinting and failing to appear in court. Bench warrants were issued for his arrest.
On February 22, 2025 the outstanding Bench Warrants were executed when Mr. Canonizado was seen by the police and arrested in downtown Oshawa. Mr. Canonizado was ordered to stop and unsuccessfully attempted to flee. He was further charged with Obstruct Police.
On February 25, 2025 the court issued a Fitness Assessment. Mr. Canonizado was assessed by Dr. Jennifer Pytyck a forensic psychiatrist, who found, on March 12, 2025, that Mr. Canonizado was unfit to stand trial. The court issued a 60-day treatment order.
On March 18, 2025 pursuant to the 60-day Treatment Order, Mr. Canonizado was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Services (Ontario Shores).
On May 9, 2025 Mr. Canonizado was returned to court and was found unfit to stand trial. A Form 49, Warrant for Committal, was issued pending disposition of the Ontario Review Board. Mr. Canonizado has remained on the FAU to await his initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board. That hearing took place on September 22, 2025.
THE ACCUSED’S BACKGROUND:
Mr. Canonizado is 26 years old. He was born in the Philippines and raised by his grandparents after his mother immigrated to Canada. In 2014, his mother sponsored Mr. Canonizado, his father and brother, to relocate to Canada. Mr. Canonizado is currently a Permanent Resident.
After immigrating to Canada, Mr. Canonizado enrolled in high school at the Grade 11 or 12 level. Although he was not diagnosed but suspected he have a learning disability, Mr. Canonizado struggled academically and left without completing a diploma. His native language is Tagalog, which he prefers. His proficiency in English has improved over the years. He refused the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter for the preparation of the present assessment (Exhibit1), authored by Dr. Andrew Wang, the attending forensic psychiatrist. Dr. Wang testified he and Mr. Canonizado had no difficulty communicating in English during their interactions between May and September 2025.
Mr. Canonizado is single. He has no dependants. He lives alone, but was unable to provide a home address when interviewed. He has been intermittently homeless. His employment history is unknown. He is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program. He is incapable of managing his finances which are managed by a trustee.
Mr. Canonizado’s parents are separated. Contact with his family is limited. His mother visited him once at Ontario Shores in April 2025.
PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY:
In 2016, at age 16, Mr. Canonizado began to experience psychotic symptomology attributed to the use of crystal methamphetamine. He was ultimately diagnosed with schizophrenia in conjunction with a stimulant use disorder. He had multiple psychiatric admissions at Lakeridge Health Oshawa from 2017-2024. While monitored as an outpatient by the Canadian Mental Health Association Assertive Treatment Team, Mr. Canonizado periodically did not take his medications and continued his use of stimulants.
Mr. Canonizado’s mother reported that Mr. Canonizado’s recovery has been impacted by his ongoing substance use and medication noncompliance.
When interviewed by Dr. Jennifer Pytyck in March 2025, to determine his fitness to stand trial, Mr. Canonizado admitted using crystal methamphetamine “a little bit…” When asked how long he had been using crystal methamphetamine he replied, “I don’t know”. When asked about any history of injecting drugs, he replied in the affirmative, then later denied taking any medications or drugs by injection. He was unable to explain this contradiction.
In October 2024, one month prior to the index offences in November, Mr. Canonizado was admitted to Lakeridge Health Oshawa Hospital after being brought there by the police on a Form 47 due to failure to comply with his Community Treatment. He was administered his prescribed long-acting antipsychotic medication. However, it does not appear that any antipsychotic medication has been dispensed since October 2024.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES:
16.The parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. The hospital representative submitted that Mr. Canonizado is currently unfit to stand trial and recommended he be detained at the Forensic Services of Ontario Shores subject to terms and conditions of a Disposition Order.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s recommendations in all regards.
Counsel for Mr. Canonizado contended that her client is fit to stand trial as found in (Exhibit 1), the September 9, 2025 Hospital Report to The Ontario Review Board. She submitted that presently Mr. Canonizado has a reality-based understanding of the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings. Counsel conceded although a significant threat has been established due to Mr. Canonizado’s mental health history, a conditional discharge being the least restrictive and least onerous disposition be imposed.
APPLICABLE LAW:
19.The test for fitness to stand trial is one of limited cognitive capacity within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. (R. v Taylor (1992) 11 O.R. (3d)). Specifically, whether Mr. Canonizado, due to a mental disorder, is (1) unable to understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (2) the possible consequences of the proceedings, (3) or to communicate with counsel.
- In R. v Bharwani, 2023 ONCA the Court of Appeal emphasized the need for meaningful participation in proceedings to be fit for trial. The Court at para 167 held in part;
The purpose of s. 2 of the fitness test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate in their trial…. The Taylor questions are not a sufficient surrogate for assessing fitness…Applying the fitness test is more nuanced than the questions recognize…The accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings.
- Bharwani was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In its reasons (R. v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26) the Court concurred with the earlier Court of Appeal analysis.
At para. 6 the court held in part:
…an accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so……The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality- based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences and an ability to select between those options when making decisions…..The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING:
As earlier reviewed, Mr. Canonizado was admitted to the FAU at Ontario Shores on March 18, 2025, pursuant to 60-day Treatment Order.
During that period, Mr. Canonizado was generally seclusive, polite, cooperative and exhibited no aggressive behaviour. However, he was often observed talking or laughing to himself as if he was responding to internal stimuli. When asked, he would deny he was experiencing any perceptual disturbances. He was compliant with medication, but insisted he did not require the medication. He did not attend to his hygiene and was often observed wearing the same clothes for many days resulting in his room being quite malodorous. He often asked when he could leave and was generally perseverative about discharge.
At the conclusion of the March 18, 2025 Treatment Order, Mr. Canonizado was found unfit to stand trial and has remained at the FAU, awaiting Disposition from the Board.
For the purposes of Disposition, Dr. Andrew Wang, Mr. Canonizado’s attending forensic psychiatrist, prepared a written report dated September 9, 2025 (Exhibit 1), and testified before the Board on September 22, 2025.
CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF RISK:
- Dr. Wang opined that Mr. Canonizado continued to be observed smiling to himself and laughing inappropriately. His speech had limited spontaneous content, quite often his thought process was concrete and simple, and his insight regarding his illness and need for treatment limited. Although Mr. Canonizado exhibited no aggressive or grossly disorganized behaviour, this would likely change if he became non adherent to medication, which would likely result in worsening of his symptoms. It is unlikely he would continue with treatment absent follow up, patient support, and stable housing. Treatment non-compliance would precipitate a mental decomposition and repetition of criminal acts of similar consequence to those of the index offences.
FITNESS ASESSMENT:
Dr. Wang testified that he weekly engaged with Mr. Canonizado in one- to- one fitness to stand trial coaching. Originally, Mr. Canonizado had a limited understanding that he had been charged with anything. His response was, “I did not do it; I didn’t do anything”. Over time Mr. Canonizado generally identified that he was charged with possession of a weapon and threatening.
In his report (Exhibit 1) Dr. Wang found Mr. Canonizado as “being fit to stand trial at this time… despite some degree of cognitive impairment that has led to his difficulties in understanding and retaining information pertaining to the court process. When testifying before the Board he described Mr. Canonizado to be “marginally” fit to stand trial.
29.. Dr Wang further testified before the Board hearing on September 22, 2025, that he met with Mr. Canonizado on September 19, 2025. As a result of that meeting and his interaction with Mr. Canonizado, Dr Wang concluded that at that given time Mr. Canonizado was not fit to stand trial.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:
The Board finds on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Canonizado is presently not fit to stand trial. In coming to that determination Board relies on the applicable case law, documentary evidence introduced, the expert testimony of Dr. Wang, and the submissions of all parties.
There is no issue that Mr. Canonizado suffers from schizophrenia, a recognized mental disorder. Applying the test in Bharwani and Taylor, the Board finds that Mr. Canonizado does not “…have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings”, (Bharwani ONCA at para 6) nor the ability to communicate with counsel.
Dr. Wang testified that originally Mr. Canonizado had limited comprehension that he had been charged with any offence. Over time he was only able to” generally” identify two offences: threating someone and possession of a weapon. The circumstances surrounding those offences where, when, how, and who beyond “someone” he allegedly threatened were never provided by Mr. Canonizado. Further Mr. Canonizado never referenced being aware, and or understanding that he was also charged with Breach of a Court Order, Breach of Undertaking x3, Fail to Appear in Court x3, Breach of Peace Bond, and Obstruct police. As such, Mr. Canonizado does not have “a reality-based understanding of the nature of the proceedings” that confront him.
The Board also finds that Mr. Canonizado is unable to understand the possible consequences of the proceedings in their totality.
34.Addressing only the weapon and threatening offences, Dr. Wang reported that Mr. Canonizado “generally “understood that a finding of guilt would result in further detention, while a finding of not guilty would result in his release. However, that assessment is incomplete as it makes no reference to the other multiple counts of breaches of bail, failing to appear in court, and breach of a peace bond for which he was also charged. It would be folly to find that absent knowledge of those offences, Mr. Canonizado would understand the consequences of those proceedings on any level including a limited “general” level.
As held in Bharwani ONCA at para 167 Fitness to Stand test is contextual.” The purpose of the test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate in their trial.” Lacking an understanding of the proceedings and their consequences, Mr. Canonizado would not be meaningfully present and not be able to meaningfully participate in his trial.
Lastly, the Board finds that Mr. Canonizado is unable to effectively and meaningfully communicate with counsel for the purpose of instruction and to follow the proceedings. Dr. Wang noted in (Exhibit 1) that Mr. Canonizado consistently struggled to identify the role of the lawyers and only through prompting was he able to “generally” identify the roles of defence and Crown counsel. He did not always recall the meaning of an oath, but “generally” understood it was not permissible to lie in court. Mr. Canonizado was able to communicate in simple terms and “seemed” to understand what was conveyed to him.
Dr Wang was asked, given the state of Mr. Canonizado’s mental health, with the attendant pressures of a trial and inherent complexity, would Mr. Canonizado be able to meaningfully follow the proceedings and instruct counsel. Dr. Wang responded it would be difficult for him to do so.
In summarizing his assessment of Mr. Canonizado’s fitness to stand trial set out in (Exhibit 1), Dr. Wang testified when he finalized his report to the Board on September 9, 2025, he found Mr. Canonizado to be marginally fit.
He further testified that mental health is a fluctuating concept and an accused’s capacity may fluctuate over time. When he met with Mr. Canonizado on September 19, 2025, three days before the present Ontario Review Board Hearing on September 22, 2025, he found Mr. Canonizado to be unfit to stand trial. Dr. Wang’s evidence was not challenged or undermined.
For all the above reasons it is the unanimous conclusion of the Board, that presently Mr. Canonizado is not fit to stand trial.
In making this Disposition, The Board has taken into consideration Mr. Canonizado’s mental status, his hoped future reintegration into society, and the paramount need of safety of the public.
Accordingly, the Board orders that Mr. Canonizado be bound by a Detention Order within the Forensic Program at Whitby Shores with the following conditions:
(a) to attend within or outside of hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes;
(b) hospital and grounds privileges accompanied by staff or person approved in charge;
(c) hospital and grounds privileges indirectly supervised;
(d) passes for up to 10 12 hours to enter the community within a 150-kilometre radius of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, indirectly supervised; and
(e) passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community within a 150-kilometre radius of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, indirectly supervised; and
(f) to live in the community in accommodation by the person in charge.
Mr. Canonizado should also be directed to:
(a) abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant, including cannabinoids; any medical use of the above must be approved by the person in charge or designate;
(b) submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, or his or her designate, for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant;
(c) refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition, or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer; and
(d) when living in the community, report to the person in charge of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, or his or her designate, as required, and not less than every two weeks.
- Although not a condition of the above Detention Order, the Board has considered the evidence of Dr. Wang who concurred that there is a possibility of dissimulation potentially influenced by the stigma associated with mental illness. He agreed that it warrants further exploration. It may be helpful for the hospital to obtain a consultation from a Tagalog speaking psychiatrist, psychologist, or other qualified mental health professional (depending on availability) as part of a psychiatric evaluation to clarify whether the presentation reflects dissimulation or an underlying psychiatric or cognitive concern that could affect fitness to stand trial.
DATED this 6th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Alexander Sosna
Legal Member
__________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board