Re: Roberte J. Davidson
ORB File No: 5912
Hearing held on: Thursday, September 11, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Steinberg
Members: Dr. G. Chaimowitz
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. D. D’Intino
Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Roberte Davidson
Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Ramsey
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 28, 2025)
Introduction
On June 29th, 2011, the accused, Roberte J. Davidson, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on one charge of assault, two charges of uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, and one charge of assaulting a peace officer, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Ms. Davidson is currently subject to a Disposition dated September 18th, 2024, which detains her within the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter “ROMHC” or the “Hospital”) on terms and conditions, up to and including the privilege of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On September 11, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened in person and a hearing was held at ROMHC. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Ms. Davidson continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Ms. Davidson meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of her current Detention Order Disposition.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type, most recent episode manic with psychotic features.
Index Offences:
- The facts giving rise to the index offences were set out in last years Reasons for Disposition and are summarized as follows:
“On Thursday May 5, 2011, the accused and the victim were having a verbal argument at the victim’s residence, during which the accused allegedly punched the victim in the face.
On Saturday May 7, 2011, the accused attended the victim’s apartment and demanded that he let her in. When he refused, she allegedly became agitated and stated, ‘You cock sucker, I will shoot you if you don’t open the door.’ The victim called Ottawa housing, who had her removed from the building. She returned four hours later and began knocking on the door, threatening to kill herself. The victim called police, and she was arrested. During the arrest she threw a large cup of warm coffee on one of the constables, yelling obscenities.
On May 11, 2011, the accused was released on recognizance of bail with the following conditions: Abstain from communication or association directly or indirectly with Sylvain Leroux.’
On May 12, 2011, the accused called Alex Lozano at 09:36 hours and left him the following voice mail message on his answering machine “hi Eric, tell Alex I’m going to kill him with my bare hands, thank you.’
At 09:38 hours the accused left Alex another voice message on his home answering machine ‘Alex I’m going to kill you’.
Alex called police to report and Cst. Marshall attended.
At approximately 10:00 hours, the accused called the victim, Sylvain Leroux and stated I’ve got a gun and I’m going to kill you’, the victim called the police to advise. Cst. Heffler attended and received a written statement from the victim.
Cst. Ham attended the accused’s residence located at 211 Bronson Ave and arrested the accused at 11:30 hours.”.”
Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
The Hospital took the position that Ms. Davidson meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused deferred his position until hearing the evidence of the Hospital.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Sandhu, who is Ms. Davidson’s attending psychiatrist.
Dr. Sandhu testified by way of update to the Hospital Report that discussions took place recently between Ms. Davidson and her family members regarding the family’s role as decision makers in her care and disposition of finances and property. The parties also discussed with Ms. Robertson the possibility of a long-term care placement in Cornwall and that the family would pursue an application for same.
No further updates to the Hospital Report were provided. no reference to the contents of the hospital report has been made
In response to questions from Mr. Davies, Dr. Sandhu explained that Ms. Davidson’s insight into her diagnosis is “not great”. He explained that she has a very “concrete and superficial understanding of her illness”. What this means is that she understands that she needs to take medication for something, but her insight into her diagnosis, its symptoms and its impact on her cognition and behaviour is absent.
Dr. Sandhu expressed a concern that if Ms. Davidson were in the community and responsible for her own medication administration, she would have difficulty properly following her medication regime without oversight and support.
Dr. Sandu confirmed that there have been no incidents of physical violence involving Ms. Davidson while on the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit, but that she has had incidents of verbal aggression more recently, which involve staff or co-patients.
Dr. Sandhu testified that Ms. Davidson is pleasant to deal with on a day-to-day basis. She enjoys shopping and meeting with people in the community. She has limited groups that she engages in outside of recreational therapy groups but otherwise does not have specific treatment programming goals.
When asked if Ms. Davidson is clinically well enough to reside in the community, if a suitable placement was available to her presently, Dr. Sandhu confirmed that she was. Dr. Sandhu confirmed that while Ms. Davidson has expressed a desire to reside with her son Spencer, her Substitute Decision Makers (“SDMs”) would not approve of that. Moreover, Dr. Sandhu indicated that the treatment team has concerns about Ms. Davidson residing with Spencer that need to be explored more fully with him.
Ultimately, in large part due to her medication regime Dr. Sandhu is of the view that Ms. Davidson needs to reside in a supportive housing placement in which staff is responsible for medication administration to her. Given some hesitation on the part of Ms. Davidson to work with her SDMs to find suitable housing, it appears that there is no fully developed discharge plan at this time.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Sandhu confirmed that the last violent incident with Ms. Davidson was in 2022, which required chemical and mechanical restraints to contain. There have been no subsequent incidents of physical violence, and while there have been incidents of verbal aggression since then, the frequency of those incidents has been less frequent over time.
Dr. Sandhu confirmed that while there have been concerns in the past about Ms. Davidson’s medication compliance, that has not been a recent concern. Ms. Davidson did require two medication adjustments over the past year, but at present her medication regime is stable.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Hospital and counsel for the Attorney General maintained their Detention Order positions, while Mr. Davies did not articulate a clear position on the necessary and appropriate Disposition, apart from explaining that Ms. Davidson would prefer to remain in Hospital given that a discharge to reside with her son Spencer is not feasible at present.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Ms. Davidson does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
A 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 Roberte Davidson represents 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 and the definition of the term in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Davidson suffers from a psychotic disorder which is treated by her current medication regime and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. However, as set out in the Hospital Report, when unwell, Ms. Davidson becomes overly intrusive, disinhibited and sexually preoccupied. She has a history of requiring chemical restraints to address her physical violence, even while in Hospital, although this has not been a recent concern.
Ms. Davidson has a history of violent behaviour which has previously brought her under the auspices of the Ontario Review Board. As noted in last year’s Reasons, Ms. Davidson was previously found NCR in 2005 for charges arising from two separate incidents in January 2004 and February 2005, involving charges of assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, aggravated sexual assault and mischief under $5,000, assault (spousal), assault with a weapon (spousal), two counts of uttering threats to cause death (spousal), and one count of possession of a weapon, all in relation to Mr. Leroux, the same victim of the current index offences.
Over the past treatment year, Ms. Davidson has experienced fluctuations in her mental status which required medication changes despite presumed medication adherence. She continues to struggle with a lack of insight into her diagnosis, difficulty in identifying early symptoms of mental status decompensation and the link between her mental illness and her need for medication.
Those factors are accounted for in Ms. Davidson’s most recent violence risk assessment, found at page 114 of the Hospital Report, which evaluates her as presenting a moderate to high risk of future violence based on the factors set out in the HCR-20 v. 3.
Ultimately, in order to safely discharge Ms. Davidson from Hospital and into the community, the evidence before the Panel suggests that a long-term care facility with a high degree of support would need to be secured for her. That has not yet occurred, in part because of Ms. Davidson’s preference to reside with her son Spencer, which the Hospital does not support at this time.
In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Ms. Davidson, her reintegration into society and her other needs, the Panel finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Given the wishes of Ms. Davidson, the Panel requests that the Hospital investigate the feasibility and appropriateness of a discharge plan for Ms. Davidson that includes residing with her son Spencer.
DATED this 28th of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. David D’Intino
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board