Ontario Review Board
Re: Dane Bryan
ORB File No: 7670
Hearing held on: Thursday, September 25, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. G. Eayrs Mr. M.D. Segal Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing: Accused: Dane Bryan Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Choptiany
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 5, 2025)
Introduction
On December 17, 2019, Dane Brian was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, mischief - not exceeding $5000, uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, and assault with a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Bryan is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 18, 2024, which detains him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24-hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On September 25, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at CAMH to review Mr. Bryan's Disposition, pursuant to s. 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Bryan's counsel, Ms. Feldman, informed the Board that she had recently met with Mr. Bryan in person and that he was content to be absent from his hearing. To attend even virtually, by Zoom, appears to be very anxiety provoking for him. The Board notes that Mr. Bryan has significant physical and intellectual difficulties and that attending the hearing in person would be quite onerous for him and for his caregivers. Accordingly, the Board was content to make an order permitting Mr. Bryan to be absent for the hearing, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Feldman added that for next year's hearing, she will encourage Mr. Bryan to attend virtually if possible.
A Hospital Report dated September 18, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties confirmed their joint position to the Board that Mr. Bryan remains unfit to stand trial and that his current disposition, on the same terms and conditions, remains the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all the circumstances. The parties maintained this joint submission at the conclusion of the evidence.
Alleged Offences
- The circumstances of the alleged index offences are summarized in last year's Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On December 12, 2019, Mr. Bryan’s mother contacted police and reported that her son assaulted her by throwing a glass cabinet towards her. He had become enraged because he was unable to go outside. When the police spoke to Mr. Bryan, he said, “I want to kill my mom”.
On December 16th, 2019, Mr. Bryan attended St. Michael's Hospital for a mental health issue. Hospital staff advised police that the accused suffers from autism but does not meet the threshold for a formal apprehension under the authority of the Mental Health Act. After receiving his medical release, Mr. Bryan was asked by staff on several occasions to leave the hospital. He became enraged with one of the nurses, grabbed her with one hand and pulled her towards his chest, refusing to release her. He then grabbed the victim's glasses, destroying them. She did not suffer any physical injuries as a result of the interaction but was extremely fearful of Mr. Bryan.”
Background History
Mr. Bryan’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Bryan is 28 years of age and was born and raised in Toronto. A psychological assessment conducted when Mr. Bryan was 10 years of age identified that he was delayed in most areas of functioning and performed lower than 1% of children his age.
In 2010, Mr. Bryan was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes abdominal pain, severe diarrhea and malnutrition. Mr. Bryan underwent colorectal surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children in 2014. He experienced a significant deterioration following the surgery, likely due to the chronic stress in coping with the various medical procedures and substantial changes in his routine.
As Mr. Bryan grew older, he became agitated and aggressive when his requests were not immediately gratified. His aggression included sexual threats, property destruction and suicidal threats. His parents often contacted 911 for support when he was behaving aggressively.
Mr. Bryan was admitted to hospital on a number of occasions due to his unpredictable aggression towards family and caregivers. His family was unable to manage his behaviour. When admitted to hospital, he required locked seclusion and chemical restraint on a frequent basis. There were assaults on nurses and other hospital staff. Notably, his aggressive behaviour would occur with little warning and no discernable triggering factors, but for requisite wound and ostomy care.
In March 2019, he was brought to the CAMH emergency room by the police after he reportedly assaulted a stranger and threatened to kill his father. He endorsed command auditory hallucinations to punch others and to kill his father. After a brief admission, he was discharged back to the family home.
Mr. Bryan was admitted to CAMH on December 17, 2019, pursuant to a Warrant of Committal after being found Unfit to Stand Trial. Mr. Bryan made attempts to assault staff several times a week while they provided care to him. These assaults were in the form of kicking out or attempting to grab or punch those in his vicinity. In order to ensure the safety of the staff and minimize the risk of self-injury, a behavioural plan and a Protective Devices Plan (PDP) were formed with the approval of his substitute decision maker and the medical and nursing chiefs at CAMH. According to the plans, Mr. Bryan would be in locked seclusion and mechanical restraints used when staff were providing physical care, for example, when ostomy care was being provided.
Mr. Bryan’s behavioural plan was reviewed regularly and modified as needed to address emergent concerns. His PDP plan was renewed weekly with the approval of the CAMH physician and nursing chiefs.
Over the course of the following few years, the frequency of use of mechanical restraints on Mr. Bryan decreased. However, he continued to require restraints during medical assessments and interventions, including when meeting with his community specialists or undergoing blood work. He continued to be aggressive and highly susceptible to grabbing, biting or throwing items at care providers.
Mr. Bryan's current diagnosis is intellectual disability, unspecified.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital's evidence was presented through its report dated September 18, 2024, entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing, and through the oral testimony of Dr. M. Choptiany, who is Mr. Bryan’s attending psychiatrist at the Forensic Service of CAMH.
Dr. Choptiany adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and advised that there were no significant updates to be provided, except for the fact that he had re-assessed Mr. Bryan for fitness to stand trial on Tuesday, namely two days ago, and that Mr. Bryan remained unable to answer any of the Taylor test questions. Mr. Bryan does not remember that he faces criminal charges and according to Dr. Choptiany, he would not be able to instruct counsel and would not be able to meaningfully participate in a trial.
On October 21, 2024, Mr. Bryan was discharged to a 24-hour supervised high-support residence managed by the Salvation Army at 1132 Broadview Avenue in Toronto. The residence provides 4:1 staff supervision and is staffed 24 hours per day. Mr. Bryan is also supported by the Forensic Outpatient Service, which includes Dr. Choptiany, with whom he meets virtually on a monthly basis and his caseworker, who sees him every two weeks at his residence. The residence is also supported by Pryor Linder and Associates (PLA), who provide behavioural therapy consultation and clinical support to the team. Since Mr. Bryan's discharge, the treatment team has been in regular contact with housing staff and PLA via virtual meetings. PLA was highly involved at the outset of the discharge but is now providing consultation on an “as needed” basis. PLA drives the behavioural plan which is in place for Mr. Bryan, and which has been consented to by his brother, who is his substitute decision maker.
The hospital report sets out a list of concerning incidents that have taken place since Mr. Bryan was discharged to his residence and which include threats of sexual violence to female staff, actual physical assaults on staff, and Mr. Bryan throwing things at people including his ostomy bag. Dr. Choptiany stated that with the application of the current Behavioural Plan, the incidents have attenuated in severity. Some of these incidents happen with inconsistency in staffing and stressful interactions for Mr. Bryan such as after a visit with his father. It has been noted that overall, there has been improvement.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. Bryan, Ms. Feldman, Dr. Choptiany opined that Mr. Bryan is likely permanently unfit and that even if he learned how to answer Taylor test questions, he would likely not become fit as this would not change his inability to meaningfully participate in his defence. Dr. Choptiany acknowledged that Mr. Bryan has been participating in some educational endeavors in his residence.
With respect to the use of restraints, Dr. Choptiany confirmed that though the severity of incidents has lessened, it has been noted that some of Mr. Bryan's incidents of behavioural dysregulation are longer in duration. The use of restraints is in accordance with the Behavioural Plan and typically involve physical restraints when Mr. Bryan is sitting in a chair. The treatment team is very aware of the potential negative effect of restraints on patients and attempts to limit their use.
Dr. Choptiany acknowledged that Mr. Bryan is currently accessing increased privileges at his residence including perimeter walks around the property and some escorted visits into the community. Mr. Bryan is typically considered a risk to those in immediate proximity to him and therefore has not typically been a threat when in the community.
In response to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Choptiany indicated he believes that Mr. Bryan is currently optimally placed, but that in the event of any adverse changes, his placement would need to be reconsidered. He is currently under 4:1 supervision at all times.
Dr. Choptiany acknowledged that it might be helpful to specify the intensity of Mr. Bryan's intellectual disability as this might be informative and open the door to other initiatives to assist with his care. Based on his experience, Dr. Choptiany indicated that he suspects that Mr. Bryan’s intellectual disability is in the moderate range but that he would undertake to do this over the course of the next year.
With respect to the issue of fitness, Dr. Choptiany reiterated that even if Mr. Bryan was participating in fitness coaching, that this would likely not change his inability to be meaningfully present at a trial. Dr. Choptiany confirmed that it is likely that Mr. Bryan would have received some fitness education in the past but that over the course of the past year the transition to the residence has been at the forefront of his care. Dr. Choptiany acknowledged that Mr. Bryan's ability to participate in rudimentary schooling may indicate some potential to be educated. However, he maintains his belief that it is not likely to translate into Mr. Bryan becoming fit to stand trial.
No other evidence was presented.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board agrees that the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Bryan continues to be unfit to stand trial. In the recently decided case of Bharwani (Re), 2023 ONCA 203, the presumption of fitness is rebutted where an accused person is unable to exercise a reality-based approach to outstanding criminal charges. That inability may negate the person’s ability to present a substantial defence or response to the allegations laid against them. It may also impair the person's ability to understand plea options and their consequences or to appreciate the nature and roles of the various parties and actors involved in the litigation process. This may also result in an impossibility of meaningful dialogue between the accused person and their defence counsel. In any of these situations, let alone in a case where all are at issue, an individual will continue to be found unfit to stand trial regardless of the accommodations a court can offer.
In the case of Mr. Bryan, he has no recollection of the alleged offences, and his unspecified intellectual disability renders him unable to understand or appreciate plea options and to appreciate or comprehend the role of different actors in a court proceeding. He is unable to carry on a meaningful dialogue with counsel, and all of this leads us to conclude that he would be unable to meaningfully participate in a trial on the charges that he faces.
Over the course of the past year, Mr. Bryan was discharged to a highly supported 24-hour residence in the community and is being managed with the assistance of an intensive Behavioural Plan and with the intense supports of his treatment team and a behavioural consulting agency. Despite the intensity of this oversight and supervision, Mr. Bryan continues to engage in aggressive and violent incidents towards staff and co-patients with the noted reduction in intensity in the past few months, no doubt because of the application of the Behavioural Plan which is consented to by his brother who is the SDM.
A disposition continues to be needed to manage the risk to others and to this end we find that the current detention order, on the same terms and conditions, remains the necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in the circumstances. In coming to this conclusion, we have applied the factors set out at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 5^th^ day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board