Re: Ryan P. Verkaik
ORB File No: 8800
Hearing held on: Friday, September 12, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. G. Nexhipi Mr. K. McKenna Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing: Accused: Ryan P. Verkaik Counsel: Mr. F.J.P. Shanahan Co-Counsel: Ms. C. Shanahan
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 3, 2025)
Introduction
On June 3, 2025, Ryan P. Verkaik was found not criminally responsible on charges of three counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance. The Court did not make a Disposition but referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board in accordance with s. 672.45(1.1). This section also requires that a transcript of the Court’s proceeding and any other related document be forwarded without delay to the Ontario Review Board.
No documents, other than the Informations and the Crown Brief Synopsis, had been forwarded to the Ontario Review Board. At a Pre-hearing Conference on June 3, 2025, the presiding Alternate Chair was advised that the accused was residing in the community under the terms of a Judicial Release Order. In the course of today’s hearing, counsel for Mr. Verkaik, Mr. Shanahan, advised that the Release Order contained driving restrictions beginning with a prohibition that Mr. Verkaik not occupy the driver’s seat of a conveyance.
On September 12, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (“St. Joseph's”) to conduct Mr. Verkaik’s initial hearing and to make a disposition further to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked to present their preliminary positions. The hospital stated that Mr. Verkaik was a significant threat to public safety and recommended that Mr. Verkaik be subject to a detention order with the ability to live in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved, with a reporting period of not less than once a month. The hospital also proposed that there be a prohibition and testing for the use of marijuana or illicit substances. Mr. Verkaik’s counsel agreed with the hospital’s proposal.
The Crown Attorney agreed with the detention order and terms proposed by the hospital but asserted that a no driving prohibition should be added as a condition.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Review Board found that Mr. Verkaik met the test for significant threat to public safety and that a detention order with the terms proposed by the hospital were appropriate. By a three to two majority of the panel, the Board found that a driving prohibition clause should be added as a condition to Mr. Verkaik’s Disposition.
Index Offences
Dr. Chaimowitz was requested to provide a psychiatric assessment for the Court, which he completed by report of April 11, 2025. He also responded to a Board-ordered psychiatric assessment of August 22, 2025. Both assessments were filed as Exhibits 2 and 3 at today’s hearing.
The assessments outline the circumstances of the index offences as taken from the Crown Brief Synopsis of the Halton Regional Police Service as follows:
“Count 1 - Dangerous Operation CC-320.13(1)
The accused, Ryan VERKAIK, and the victim, Adam RAVENHILL, are not known to each other.
On February 22, 2024 at 9:58pm police received multiple calls regarding a white pickup truck driving erratically in the area of Westoak Trails Boulevard and Upper Middle Road West in the Town of Oakville. This white pickup truck was being driven by the accused. The Pickup truck was a 2019 Dodge Ram being operated without any license plates.
The accused and victim were traveling northbound on Dorval Drive when the accused made intentional contact with the rear of the victim’s vehicle at the intersection of Dorval Drive and Fairway Hills Boulevard. The victim was operating a 2021 blue Hyundai Santa Fe at the time of the collision, Ontario licence plate […]. The victim continued north on Dorval Drive to Upper Middle Road West, where he failed to stop at a red light. The accused was following the victim in his vehicle. The victim did not stop at the red light as he feared for his safety with the accused following him.
Once north of the intersection, on Westoak Trails Boulevard, the accused made intentional contact to the rear of the victim’s vehicle causing damage to the rear bumper and shattering the rear window. The accused then drove to the passenger side of the victim's vehicles and collided with him again, causing damage to the entire right side of the vehicle. The accused would intentionally collide with the victim’s vehicle a total of 8 times during the interaction, having no regard for the victims or public safety.
Fearing for his safety, the victim turned right onto Summit Ridge Drive in an attempt to evade the accused. The accused followed the victim until the roadway turned into a dead end. The victim left his vehicle and ran onto Upper Middle Road West to call police.
The accused then left the scene.
At 1:49am on February 23, 2024 the accused was arrested for Dangerous Operation.
The accused was read his rights to counsel and caution. The accused was incoherent and did not acknowledge anything.
The accused was transported back to 20 Division central lock up pending a bail hearing.
Count 2 - Dangerous Operation CC 320.13(1)
The accused, Ryan VERKAIK, and the victim, Samantha HENRY, are not known to each.
On February 22, 2024 at 9:58pm Police received multiple calls regarding a white pickup truck driving erratically in the area of Westoak Trails Boulevard and Upper Middle Road West in the Town of Oakville. This white pickup truck was being driven by the accused. The Pickup truck was a 2019 Dodge Ram being operated without any licence plates.
The victim was driving westbound on Upper Middle Road near Dorval Drive and observed a white Dodge Ram driving extremely close behind her. The victim then changed lanes from 1 to 2 so that the accused can pass. The accused drove up beside the victim and intentionally collided to the driver side of her vehicle several times causing damage to the vehicle. The victim was operating a 2009 white Honda Civic at the time of the collision, Ontario licence plate […].
The accused continued to follow the victim on Upper Middle Road. The victim turned northbound on Third Line and lost sight of the accused. The victim told police that Ryan was smiling at her with his eyes wide open while driving beside her and striking her vehicle.
The victim was taken to Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital with reported chest pains.
At 1:49am on February 23, 2024 the accused was arrested for Dangerous Operation.
The accused was read his rights to counsel and caution. The accused was incoherent and did not acknowledge anything.
The accused was transported back to 20 Division central lock up pending a bail hearing.
Count 3 - Dangerous Operations CC 320.13(1)
The accused, Ryan VERKAIK, and the victim, Mya CALNEK, are not known to each other.
On February 22, 2024 at 9:58pm Police received multiple calls regarding a white pickup truck driving erratically in the area of Westoak Trails Boulevard and Upper Middle Road West in the Town of Oakville. This white pickup truck was being driven by the accused. The Pickup truck was a 2019 Dodge Ram being operated without any license plates.
The victim was driving eastbound on the QEW exit ramp to Trafalgar Road when the accused intentionally collided with the passenger side of the victim's vehicle causing her to spin around. The victim was operating a 2021 blue Hyundai Santa Fe at the time of the collision, Ontario licence plate […]. The victim’s vehicle was facing westbound on the eastbound ramp when police arrived on scene. The accused then attempted to take off from the scene of the accident by driving on the grass. The accused vehicle was heavily damaged and got stuck in the ditch. The accused then exited his vehicle and ran on to the QEW ramp and began flagging down other vehicles.
The accused then sat into the rear seat of the witness, Elizabeth HENRY’s, vehicle and told her to take off from the scene. Elizabeth got out of her car and took the keys with her. The accused then exited Elizabeth's vehicle and continued to flag down other drivers. The accused also attempted to get into an unmarked police cruiser that arrived on the scene. The accused was identified as the driver of the white Dodge Ram and arrested on scene for Fail to Remain as the accused was involved in two collisions in Oakville prior to this one.
At 1:49am on February 23, 2024 the accused was arrested for Dangerous Operation.
The accused was read his rights to counsel and caution. The accused was incoherent and did not acknowledge anything.
The accused was transported back to 20 Division central lock up pending a bail hearing.”
- Other charges under the Highway Traffic Act for driving while his licence was under suspension, driving a motor vehicle without plates and failure to remain, were withdrawn as was a Criminal Code offence of impaired operation of a motor vehicle.
Background
Mr. Verkaik’s personal, developmental and psychiatric background is outlined in both of the above-noted psychiatric assessments and should be referred to for detail.
Mr. Verkaik is now 41 years old and the eldest of a sibling line of four. For most of his life he has grown up in Oakville, Ontario. His parents divorced while he was in third year university when he was about 21 years old.
Mr. Verkaik’s mother reports that her ex-husband would engage in emotionally abusive behaviour towards her and her children resulting in all of the children being estranged from him. Following his parents’ separation, Mr. Verkaik remained at home with his mother until he was 26 years old. Subsequently he developed a serious relationship with a woman from whom he is separated and with whom he now shares custody of an eight-year-old daughter.
After high school, Mr. Verkaik attended the University of Waterloo where he studied political science for three years but withdrew from that due to financial constraints. He then completed a diploma in firefighting at Conestoga College. Eventually he began working as a roofer, starting his own roofing company (Elements Roofing) in 2007.
The first indication of mental health issues appears to be a report from Mr. Verkaik’s mother that he began acting and talking bizarrely in April of 2021. He believed he was infallible and could not be hurt or die. He made bizarre comments on social media and he was hospitalized for inappropriate behaviour outside a local Home Depot.
When police interviewed Mr. Verkaik’s mother at this time, she advised that her son had recently jumped off a two-storey house because he thought nothing could happen to him and that he had reported being watched by people in black cars and talking about children being stolen. She reported to police that her son had been under stress relating to ongoing custody issues with his four-year-old daughter and that he had been smoking cannabis on a daily basis prior to the Home Depot incident, but had recently quit.
Mr. Verkaik was taken by police to the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital where he responded well to Epival in combination with olanzapine and was told that he needed these medications for a minimum of one year following remission of his symptoms. His discharge diagnosis was: rule out bipolar 1 disorder, most recent episode manic, severe with psychotic features, in early partial remission; rule out cannabis induced psychosis. He was discharged home and referred to an urgent care clinic on an outpatient basis with Dr. Sadera.
The next hospital admission was at the Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital between February 25 and March 4, 2024. At this time, he had been detained at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex following the index offences. While there, he demonstrated symptoms of mania. Mr. Verkaik reported having a history of bipolar disorder but he had stopped taking medication due to sedation following his previous discharge from Joseph Brant Hospital (presumably in 2021).
Mr. Verkaik also acknowledged regularly drinking and smoking cannabis prior to his incarceration. His symptoms improved with Aripiprazole. Discharge diagnosis was bipolar disorder, type 1.
On August 23 and November 11, 2024, Mr. Verkaik was referred to the Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital Outpatient Care Clinic for follow-up for his bipolar disorder. Mr. Verkaik advised then that he first struggled with a depressive episode when he was about 19 years of age and began smoking cannabis to help him sleep and relax. He advised that prior to his arrest he had been using .5 grams of cannabis daily. The care team recommended cognitive behavioural therapy, but he did not respond to calls to set an appointment for counselling and the referral was closed.
During Dr. Chaimowitz’s initial assessment, Mr. Verkaik advised he had been smoking a joint of cannabis nightly since he was 18 and that it helped him calm down. He started drinking alcohol when he was about 11 years old but denied using it in a problematic way. He had experimented with cocaine when he was 19 and used it on a few occasions but stopped it when he was 23. He used psilocybin about five times when he was 19 years old and has experimented with Percocets in the past but stopped using them because they make him sleepy.
Although, as noted above, Mr. Verkaik had had contact with the police prior to the index offences and at the time of the index offences, he has no criminal record. It appears that on these occasions it was evident to the authorities that Mr. Verkaik’s behaviour was due to an altered mental state.
Evidence at the Hearing
As part of the Review Board ordered psychiatric assessment of Mr. Verkaik, a psychological assessment took place under the supervision of Dr. Mini Mamak on August 7, 2025. This assessment is included as part of Dr. Chaimowitz’s August 22, 2025, assessment report.
It is noted that Mr. Verkaik had resumed employment with his own roofing company. Since May of 2025, as he was prohibited from driving by the court, an employee drove him to customers’ homes for quotes and jobs. He also relied on his mother, with whom he was living, to drive him when exercising time with his daughter and picking her up at his ex-partner’s home.
Mr. Verkaik also reported that he had seen his community psychiatrist and Dr. Kozak on a few occasions since February of 2025 and that he has been adherent to taking his prescribed Abilify medication.
Mr. Verkaik has denied using any drugs including cannabis since the middle of 2024 and he denies any cravings for same. His alcohol drinking has been quite limited and he is confident that he can moderate his alcohol use.
Dr. Chaimowitz testified on behalf of the hospital. He describes Mr. Verkaik as being quite stable mentally at the present time and that he has “modest insight” about his mental condition. Mr. Verkaik appears to be following the conditions of his release order. In his interactions with Dr. Chaimowitz he has been open and honest and embarrassed about the situation he is in.
Dr. Chaimowitz stressed that Mr. Verkaik has no history of violence. Dr. Mamak’s assessment includes Mr. Verkaik’s completion of the HCR-20 V3 and the SAPROF tools. In the clinical risk factors section of the HCR-20, Dr. Mamak notes that “...based on available information, Mr. Verkaik has been quite stable recently but there do remain some areas of outstanding risk. Although he has remained adherent to his prescribed Abilify (as per his report) he discontinued Lamotrigine in early 2025 without speaking with his psychiatrist about same, calling into question some of his judgment and insight. Additionally, although he has recently resumed employment without issue, he acknowledged one instance of lying to WSIB to avoid a safety violation. Lastly, although his depressive symptoms have improved over the past six months, he endorsed some ongoing distress regarding his current circumstances (i.e., pertaining to his living arrangements, driving prohibition and index offences).”
Under the risk management section, Dr. Mamak notes “despite his current adherence to Abilify (based on his self-report) given recent discontinuation of other psychiatric medication, past noncompliance (of both pharmacological treatment and psychological services) and a history of some anti-establishment beliefs, there remain some concerns about his longer-term adherence to pharmacological and psychological treatment. Additionally, as Mr. Verkaik’s mood symptoms have historically been triggered by situational stressors, it is possible that his upcoming transition under the ORB may serve as a destabilizing stressor and some of his active coping strategies (as opposed to passive coping strategies such as use of substances and rumination) are less well developed. Overall using the HCR-20, Mr. Verkaik’s risk for violence over the next year (if he were to be under the purview of the ORB) falls within the low to low-moderate range.”
In her overall assessment of risk, Dr. Mamak states that his risk for violence in the next year if under the Review Board’s jurisdiction is considered to be in the low to low-moderate range, however without external control and support this risk would increase. The contemplated risk is described as “violence would likely take the form of reckless behaviour that could reasonably cause physical harm to others, including dangerous driving, or other impulsive and reckless behaviours (reflective of disorganization and disinhibition). Potential victims could be anyone in the vicinity”.
Dr. Mamak noted that a psychiatric relapse would most likely take place as a result of non-adherence with medication and noncompliance with his Disposition conditions and also likely to occur in the context of cannabis use and perhaps as a result of an increase of some of his anti-establishment political views or a further disruption of his family or work life.
Dr. Chaimowitz testified that he believes that the hospital would be able to manage Mr. Verkaik’s risk without the need of a formal driving prohibition in his Disposition. Mr. Verkaik is living in the community with his family and for the time being that seems to be working well.
Although recognizing the circumstances of the index offences, Dr. Chaimowitz is not in favour of a driving restriction in Mr. Verkaik’s Disposition. In his report, Dr. Chaimowitz states:
“Given the balance associated with any risk attached to driving, Mr. Verkaik’s illness and the significant strengths that would come from being able to work effectively, transport his daughter and get around, it is my position that should Mr. Verkaik continue with his medications and maintain regular follow up, he should be able to then apply to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) for his driving restriction to be withdrawn. Being able to drive will be a strong positive factor in his life. ...Driving is obviously an issue in the event that he becomes psychotic and he in that way, in my opinion, would pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.”
Dr. Chaimowitz made reference to the accused’s Highway Traffic Act record. The record from the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario dated February 23, 2024, was filed as Exhibit 4. Dr. Chaimowitz admits being taken aback when he saw the extent of Mr. Verkaik’s Highway Traffic Act offences.
Indeed, this record is gasp-worthy. The infractions extend from April 2005 up to December 2021 with a gap in registered offences up to February 23, 2024, when his licence was suspended until May 23, 2024. This latter suspension coincides with the index offences when one of the charges against him was for driving while his licence was suspended.
Dr. Chaimowitz’s April 11, 2025, assessment refers to these infractions. There appears to be between 55 and 60 infractions in that 16-year period between April of 2005 and December of 2021. Most of these are for driving without a driver’s licence or while his licence is suspended, or driving with mechanical issues on his vehicle, all under the Highway Traffic Act. However, there are also a number of speeding tickets between those years; one fail to ensure a child passenger is secured by a child’s seating system or restraint system and two substance-related infractions (having care or control of a motor vehicle with cannabis readily available and with an open container of liquor).
Mr. Verkaik had a number of employment violations resulting in fines dealing with work permits and violations relating to his roofing company. He also has convictions for travelling the wrong way on a one-way street, driving the wrong way on a divided highway, three charges of holding a hand-held device while driving, careless driving, failing to obey lane lights and failing to secure a passenger in a car seat.
Mr. Verkaik testified at his hearing today in a clear and coherent manner. He confirms that his release order was based on his parents’ sureties for bail. He has complied with the conditions of the court order and has incurred no criminal offences or other highway traffic offences since the index offences to the present.
Mr. Verkaik dealt with the information secured by Dr. Mamak that he stopped taking lamotrigine on his own and without discussing with his doctor. Mr. Verkaik indicated that he had in fact spoken to Dr. Kozak to indicate that that medication was not improving anything and she okayed him stopping it so long as he kept on the Abilify that she had prescribed.
Mr. Verkaik described his past successful business in roofing when he has had as many as 14 workers and multiple job sites. This was a period in his work life when he was extremely busy and he had to move from site-to-site and obtain quotes, using his vehicle. Since then, this work has slowed down. He now works three to four days a week and gets help from one of his workers to drive him just to get quotes. He pays his worker extra and feels he is imposing on him. At this point he feels he is just trying to keep his business afloat.
Mr. Verkaik shares custody of his 9-year-old daughter who lives in Stoney Creek with his partner, whereas Mr. Verkaik lives with his mother in Oakville. He picks her up every weekend, recently using Uber to do this, because his mother who had been driving them broke her arm. On one occasion he even rode his bike there to visit his daughter. Mr. Verkaik’s daughter means a lot to him and he appreciates his mother’s support, however, it is a strain on him from a business and private life to not be able to operate a vehicle.
As a result of his business slowing down generally and his absence from the business, since the index offences he has been having difficulty financially. He paid off about $10,000 in past due fines and has sold his house, currently using his savings from this. He advised the Board that his mood has been better, particularly since he has relieved himself of the mortgage after he sold his house. He acknowledges that his low mood was a significant problem for him after the index offences.
Mr. Verkaik’s addressed his Highway Traffic Act record where most of his suspensions were for unpaid fines. He explains that during those years he put his house costs as a priority and just let the debts grow. Most of the speeding fines are for a few kilometers over the limit. The offence for not providing a proper seat restraint is explained by his mistaken thinking then that his daughter was big enough to be a passenger without the car seat.
In his interview with psychologist Dr. Mamak, Mr. Verkaik reported that most of the fines he received were between the 2013 to 2015 years and when asked why he did not change his behaviour despite repeated fines, he answered that he often took big risks, feeling “emboldened” that he got away with it. He acknowledged that his licence was suspended during the index offences and admitted that he typically drove when his licence was suspended. He also acknowledged that some anti-government and anti-establishment beliefs that he held, in addition to financial stress, likely contributed to him not paying outstanding fees. He has also not filed taxes since 2021 and has missed paying other bills such as hydro and highway tolls over the years.
As the significant threat to the safety of the public has been conceded by the parties, in their submissions counsel focused on whether or not a driving prohibition should be included in Mr. Verkaik’s Disposition. Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Verkaik’s significant threat arises from bipolar disorder connected to his driving. This is consistent with Dr. Chaimowitz’s evidence that Mr. Verkaik’s risk is entirely attached to driving a motor vehicle while manic.
Mr. O’Brien asserts that with the involvement of the hospital’s treatment team while living in the community the hospital can maintain oversight, something which he has never had and now should protect the public in the future. Mr. O’Brien suggests that a protective factor for the accused is that by being able to drive he can easily see his daughter and pursue his work. Ms. Gzik, on behalf of the Attorney General, notes the absence of information from Mr. Verkaik’s community psychiatrist whom he has seen three times since February of 2025. Notwithstanding this, Ms. Gzik asserts that there is some history of medication noncompliance and no treatment follow-up. In addition to that, there is a historical record of Mr. Verkaik’s lack of regard for the rules of driving. Ms. Gzik suggests that for at least the first reporting year a driving prohibition should be inserted in his Disposition. This will give the hospital team and the Review Board a chance to see how he manages without being able to drive a vehicle.
Mr. Shanahan submits that by and large Mr. Verkaik represents a low risk for violence and he refers to the Hospital Report and in particular the psychologist’s assessment for this. Mr. Shanahan emphasizes that it would be at significant personal cost to Mr. Verkaik if he has to rely on his mother or friends or Uber as he has used to convey him back and forth to access his daughter and his work.
Mr. Shanahan notes that his client already seems to have a medical suspension on his licence since the index offence. Mr. Verkaik has also complied with his bail order to date and he would like to exercise his right to apply for a renewal of his licence with the success of this this depending on his medical team’s support.
Decision
The Review Board panel is unanimous in finding that Mr. Verkaik represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. This has been conceded by all the parties, however, the Board independently makes its finding in its acceptance of the evidence of Dr. Chaimowitz and the information contained in the two psychiatric assessment reports. The Board also agrees that Mr. Verkaik’s risk to members of the public is while operating a vehicle and more seriously, if he operates a vehicle while in a manic state.
Where members of the Review Board panel have a difference of opinion is whether a driving prohibition should be inserted in Mr. Verkaik’s Disposition.
The majority of the panel finds that a driving prohibition should be included for the coming reporting year. The majority finds that a repeat of Mr. Verkaik’s driving behaviour at the time of the index offences is not speculative but real. At the time of Dr. Chaimowitz’s first court-ordered assessment in April 2025, although Mr. Verkaik had been treated while in custody and in the community, he had signs of active depression and needed further treatment for this. Dr. Chaimowitz considers that given Mr. Verkaik’s significant history of substance abuse, marijuana is still considered a risk factor.
Furthermore, there is a clear and long history of rule breaking in the operation of his motor vehicle. Temporally, most of this rule breaking took place before the first signs of bipolar disorder as recorded by his mother in 2021. It suggests a pattern of rule breaking and disregard for the Highway Traffic Act rules in particular, irrespective and separate from his mental illness. There has been at least a 16-year period of rule breaking under the Highway Traffic Act. Currently the majority of the Review Board panel has little to no confidence that that would not be repeated in the future were he permitted to operate a motor vehicle.
There is little question in the majority panel members’ collective minds that Mr. Verkaik has been quite shaken by this experience and they appreciate the impact that it has on him and the fact that the outcome of his reckless driving at the time of the index offences could have been much worse.
The majority Board members are also sensitive to the fact that a driving prohibition would have an impact on Mr. Verkaik in more easily and routinely being able to function at his work and to visit and pick up his daughter. He has been functioning without his licence now for about a year and a half.
Nonetheless, the sole risk to members of the public is while Mr. Verkaik is driving a vehicle. His driving history prior to the index offences supports this risk and he is clearly dangerous when he drives in a manic state. He suffers from a bipolar disorder which is a relapsing condition irrespective of the optimum use of medication. He has a history of cannabis abuse and he is prone to stressors. Dr. Mamak has noted that his coping skills are not fully developed.(See also Paragraph 30 above).
The majority members view that the safety of the public cannot be adequately protected were he permitted to operate a motor vehicle at least in the short term. The majority is not satisfied that while Mr. Verkaik is in the community a reporting of only once a week is alone sufficient to manage this risk were he permitted to operate a motor vehicle. The consumption of cannabis or alcohol or a missing of medication can happen at any time and the consequences might not be foreseen until an accident occurs.
In balancing the safety interests of members of the public against the least onerous and least restrictive terms for Mr. Verkaik in his Disposition, the majority members conclude that the public safety interests have priority.
The majority then orders that Mr. Verkaik’s Disposition should be a Detention Order with the ability to live in the community and with the terms and conditions outlined by the hospital to include a prohibition on driving.
Decision of the Minority
(Dr. G. Nexhipi and Dr. P. Prendergast)
Upon careful and considerable deliberation, the minority members of the panel agree with the proposed Detention Order but respectfully dissent on the issue of one condition of the Disposition. We are of the opinion that a driving prohibition is not necessary, nor is it the least onerous and least restrictive measure to manage the risk posed by Mr. Verkaik.
We are mindful that the Disposition imposed, including the conditions, must be the least onerous and least restrictive one pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Chaimowitz is that Mr. Verkaik’s risk is “driving while manic”. He said that risk would arise under a unique set of circumstances which were unlikely to be replicated at this time given that Mr. Verkaik is now accurately diagnosed and has been appropriately treated for the past 1.5 years now. He has acquired insight regarding this mental health and his family is well aware of his situation and what is required to manage his mental stability.
The doctor pointed out that managing his mental state is more important than a driving prohibition in risk management and a Detention Order would suffice in doing so – he explicitly stated that he believed that the risk to the public could be managed without a driving prohibition.
Dr. Chaimowitz highlighted the risk assessment conducted by Dr. M. Mamak which indicates that the accused patient is at low to moderate level of risk for violence if under the purview of the ORB. He is judged to be an intelligent and prosocial individual who has not been violent and has no criminal record. He has paid off his many MTO fines and is doing better with his financial management. He has abided by the conditions of his bail, including not driving for some 18 months. He has a strong bond with his daughter and is invested in co-parenting which involves travelling a considerable distance.
Mr. Verkaik has recently resumed working in the roofing business but at a lesser level of involvement from his previous successful business. Unfortunately, his inability to drive has proven to be a significant barrier to his ability to be gainfully employed as well as to maintain his relationship with his daughter. The hospital submits that his ability to drive would be of therapeutic value and would paradoxically, serve as a strong protective factor in managing risk.
DATED this 3^rd^ day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Alternate Chairperson
____________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board