Re: David Lewis
ORB File No: 7520
Hearing held on: Friday, September 19, 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. M.D. Segal Members: Dr. S. Nagari (via Zoom) Dr. M. Choptiany Ms. J. Greenwood Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: David Lewis Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated November 14, 2025)
Introduction
On March 29, 2019, David Lewis was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault (x2), robbery (x2), assault with a weapon, assault with intent to resist arrest and mischief under $5000 (x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
Mr. Lewis is currently the subject of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated October 4, 2024, detaining him within the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Services (the “hospital”), with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community in supervised accommodation by the person in charge.
On September 19, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Lewis’ recent Restriction of Liberty and Disposition, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
The Board marked the Hospital Report dated August 25th, 2025 as Exhibit 1, the Rule 13 correspondence regarding Mr. Lewis’ transfer was collated and marked as Exhibit 2, and the remaining Board documents including Mr. Lewis’ correspondence were marked as Exhibit 3.
Issues at the Hearing
Mr. Lewis was not present for his hearing but was represented by his counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Ms. Boissonneault advised she was fully instructed and requested the Board make an order to excuse Mr. Lewis' presence from the hearing, and that Order was made pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a).
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Lewis’ restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. Further, the secondary issue was to determine whether Mr. Lewis represented a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Lastly the panel considered which Hospital was most suitable for Mr. Lewis to be transferred to.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence before us, the Board concludes that Mr. Lewis’ restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate both for the initiation of the restriction and for the ongoing restriction.
Further, the Board concludes that Mr. Lewis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate order on the terms and conditions set out in the Disposition, having regard to the paramount consideration which is the safety of the public and taking into consideration Mr. Lewis' mental health and other needs.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their respective positions. Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. Lewis continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary disposition was a detention order. Ms. Szabo recommended a transfer of Mr. Lewis to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton. She also submitted that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate both in its initiation and for the continuation of the restriction.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, supported and agreed with the position of the hospital that Mr. Lewis be transferred to St. Joseph's, however, Ms. MacDonald asked the Board to specify that Mr. Lewis be detained on a secure forensic unit.
Counsel, Ms. Boissonneault, for Mr. Lewis conceded the issue of significant threat. She advised that Mr. Lewis agreed to the detention order and agreed that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate both at the time of initiation and ongoing. She further requested that Mr. Lewis receive indirectly supervised passes once transferred to St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton and further, that Mr. Lewis did not agree to the additional terms proposed restricting his access to devices which will be discussed below.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis
- Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder
Amphetamines-Type Substance Use Disorder (severe)
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are gleaned from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
“a. On January 18, 2018, Mr. Lewis was high on crystal methamphetamine in Toronto when he threw a cinder block through a side door window of a condo building at 50 Gloucester Street, smashing the window (Charge 1). Mr. Lewis followed Victim 1 as he attempted to enter the building. Victim 1 tried to hold the lobby door shut to keep Mr. Lewis out. However, Mr. Lewis forced his way in, attacked Victim 1 hitting him with a table leg that he had pulled out of the garbage before entering the building (Charge 2). Victim 1 ran to the second floor with Mr. Lewis in pursuit. Mr. Lewis again attacked Victim 1 with the table leg on the second floor. Mr. Lewis then pulled a fire extinguisher off the wall and hit Victim 1 on the head with it two times causing a cut behind his ear (Charge 3). Victim 2 came out of her unit due to the commotion. She got her phone to call the police. Mr. Lewis smacked the phone out of her hand (Charge 4). Victim 1 and 2 retreated to Victim 2’s unit.
b. Mr. Lewis proceeded to 30 Gloucester Street where he attacked Victim 3, punching him in the head (Charge 5). Mr. Lewis then used a rock to smash the front window of the building (Charge 6) and walked away.
c. Mr. Lewis proceeded to then walk up to Victim 4 and demand his iPhone. Mr. Lewis punched Victim 4 in the head when he refused. Mr. Lewis demanded the phone again and punched the victim in the head again when he refused. Victim 4 handed over the phone (Charges 7 and 8).
d. With a glass bottle in his hand Mr. Lewis then approached Victim 5 at the rear of 568 Yonge Street. He swung the bottle over his head and demanded Victim 5’s cigarettes. Victim 5 complied, and Mr. Lewis left with the cigarettes (Charge 9).
e. Walking toward Bay Street, Mr. Lewis approached Victim 6 and hit him in the back of the head with a glass bottle (Charge 10).
f. Police officers responded to calls about Mr. Lewis and he repeatedly swung the bottle at the officers (Charge 11). Mr. Lewis was subdued by the officers and on the ground when he swung the smashed bottle at the officers (Charge 12).
Course Since Last Disposition
The following excerpts from the Hospital Report summarize Mr. Lewis’ course since the last Disposition. Mr. Lewis left the hospital on December 6th, 2024 using unsupervised grounds privileges. He was not returned to hospital until June 11th, 2025. The correspondence Mr. Lewis sent to Dr. DeFreitas while AWOL was filed as Exhibit 3.
Mr. Lewis was last assessed as a moderate risk for future violence when considering a transition to a less secure unit with indirectly supervised privileges. The Hospital Report outlines some areas of concern over the last reporting year, reproduced below:
“The following remain areas of clinical concern for Mr. Lewis:
Mr. Lewis has now had two significant AWOLs from a General forensic unit, the most recent being between December 6, 2024 - June 11, 2025.
Mr. Lewis admitted to using substances during these AWOLs (cannabis and methamphetamines) and was non-compliant with his antipsychotic medication. These two factors likely caused him to decompensate and contributed to his incurring serious charges related to communications sent to Dr. DeFreitas.
Mr. Lewis obtained access to Dr. DeFreitas’ personal email account, and sent her lewd, violent, and sexually threatening emails. This caused significant psychological distress for her at that time, and she continues to fear for her personal safety at home and at the hospital.
Mr. Lewis has little to no insight into how his recent use of substances, and non-compliance with his medications during this recent AWOL, very likely contributed to a re-emergence of his psychotic symptoms and his current criminal charges.
Similarly, Mr. Lewis has shown no remorse for his actions towards Dr. DeFreitas. Instead, he continues to blame Dr. DeFreitas for his subsequent arrest by police and there are concerns that he continues to have romantic and/or sexual feelings towards her.
Mr. Lewis continues to engage in concerning sexual behaviours towards female staff and co-patients on the unit, resulting in his needing to be placed on increased observation and only approached in pairs.
On a number of occasions, Mr. Lewis has been observed attempting to “cheek” his medications, resulting in the need for mouth checks during medication administration.
He has not re-engaged in any therapeutic programming related to risk, including concurrent disorders programming or programming related to insight
He has refused to continue treatment with his psychologist since being returned to hospital
Mr. Lewis remains guarded related to residual symptoms of his illness and is likely under-reporting his current symptomatology.
Mr. Lewis has limited social supports, and there have been prior concerns that family members have assisted him when he has gone AWOL from hospital.
Mr. Lewis currently has no internet privileges, and no off-unit privileges, due to his current charges related to Dr. DeFreitas and his inability to appreciate the serious psychological harm that his actions have caused her.”
- To Mr. Lewis’ credit he has not had any incidents of physical aggression since returning to hospital, there has been no use of restraints or seclusion, and he has been cooperative with mouth checks for medication administration and compliance.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board heard evidence from Dr. Harrigan in addition to the Hospital Report that was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
The hospital filed emails sent by Mr. Lewis to Dr. De Freitas during Mr. Lewis’ most recent AWOL from the hospital in the spring of 2025, and those emails were marked as Exhibit 3 at this hearing. Marked as Exhibit 2 at the hearing were the bundle of Rule 13 transfer responses from the various hospitals including the response from St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton agreeing to accept the transfer of Mr. Lewis.
At the commencement of the hearing Dr. Harrigan provided an update to the Hospital report. The week prior to the hearing, staff engaged in a room search and found Mr. Lewis with a tablet that belonged to a co-patient. Mr. Lewis is not to have any electronic devices with access to the internet. Mr. Lewis was found to have deleted the internet browser history, and had installed a VPN on the device to hide his location so that his activities could not be tracked. The only evidence the team was able to find on the tablet were selfies Mr. Lewis had taken. Further, Mr. Lewis would not provide his password, or cooperate with the team about what he had used the tablet for. Mr. Lewis told the team he “did not send any emails to Dr. DeFreitas”. However, Dr. Harrigan and the team remain very concerned about the safety of Dr. DeFreitas and the female staff at Ontario Shores as Mr. Lewis has been sexually inappropriate in the past. Dr. Harrigan’s evidence was that this incident “was so deceptive, and raised a lot of red flags”.
Dr. Harrigan went on to explain that the AWOL that led to Mr. Lewis’ re-offending was very unexpected. Prior to this Mr. Lewis had been doing well in the community. Dr. DeFreitas had no concerns about his boundaries, and had no idea that Mr. Lewis had the thoughts and feelings outlined in the emails he sent to her while at large. These emails were very distressing, graphic, and sexually violent. Dr. DeFreitas is fearful for her safety, and particularly troubling was that Mr. Lewis found, and sent these emails to the Doctor’s private email address which is not publicly available.
Dr. Harrigan pointed out that Mr. Lewis does not show any remorse and is guarded. He is very resourceful and technologically savvy. There are no plans to conduct further assessments of Mr. Lewis at this time, but given the safety issues and the ability to manage Mr. Lewis, he can no longer remain at Ontario Shores. As a result, the team sought consent of other hospitals to transfer him to another facility.
Dr. Harrigan also gave evidence about the conditions being sought. Mr. Lewis would be permitted to access devices that do not have internet access or capabilities, such as the television or phone. The hospital does not support Mr. Lewis having access to devices that have access to the internet unless supervised given his recent offences and recent failure to abide by his conditions by taking a co-patient’s tablet.
Dr. Harrigan was asked questions from the panel about how these conditions would be implemented and supervised. Dr. Harrigan advised that Mr. Lewis may be permitted to use devices with access to the internet provided that the Person in Charge approved, and subject to staff’s ability to provide supervision. This is typically based on a schedule that is agreed upon between staff and the patient. This led to some further questions from the parties that clarified the role of the hospital in approving and setting a schedule for the use of devices, which can be accommodated on a unit with a higher staff ratio, typically found on a more secure unit.
Submissions of the Parties
Hospital Counsel, Ms. Szabo submitted that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate as Mr. Lewis was not able to be re-admitted to a general unit.
Given Mr. Lewis’ conduct, and the impact of his conduct on Dr. DeFreitas, the appropriate disposition is one that orders Mr. Lewis’ transfer to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton, and detains Mr. Lewis on a secure unit. This is the least onerous, least restrictive disposition to provide for the safety of the public, and for Mr. Lewis. Ms. Szabo further outlined that the conditions the Hospital is seeking are that Mr. Lewis has no internet access without the prior approval of the person in charge, and if approved, only while directly supervised.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s position that Mr. Lewis be detained on a secure unit.
Ms. Boissonneault submission largely agreed with the other parties, that Mr. Lewis should be detained at the Forensic Service of St. Joseph’s hospital or on a general unit, and that this would be the least onerous and least restrictive. Further Ms. Boissonneault highlighted that Mr. Lewis did not agree to the additional conditions regarding his restricted access to devices as Mr. Lewis was now medicated since his return to hospital and should have something to work towards as he moves forward.
Analysis and Conclusions
The Board finds that Mr. Lewis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. We make this finding based on the evidence of Dr. Harrigan and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report which outlines the re-offence scenarios notwithstanding the joint position on significant threat as outlined by the parties. Elevating Mr. Lewis’ risk is his history of elopement followed by relapse into substance use, the discontinuation of medication and leaving hospital. Mr. Lewis’ risk for future while detained in hospital with indirectly supervised privileges is considered moderate.
The objective seriousness of Mr. Lewis’ conduct while AWOL from hospital cannot be understated. Given the clear criminal conduct and lack of engagement in rehabilitative programming there is little progress that ameliorates Mr. Lewis’ risk. As such the Board unanimously agrees that Mr. Lewis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that threshold is met. The necessary and appropriate disposition is one that detains him in the forensic service.
Mr. Lewis has been in hospital receiving treatment since June 2025, after being at large in the community for over six months. When returned to hospital he was moved from a general unit to a more secure forensic assessment unit. During his time at large, he incurred additional charges involving his treating psychiatrist. This has presented challenges for the team and requires Mr. Lewis be transferred to ensure the safety of the Doctor, and other staff.
The panel agrees and supports the parties’ joint request, and orders Mr. Lewis’ transfer to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton to ensure the safety of the public which includes Dr. DeFreitas.
Lastly, the panel agrees with the hospital’s proposed conditions to manage Mr. Lewis while he remains in hospital at Ontario Shores, and upon his transfer to St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton. Mr. Lewis shall be subject to conditions where he is only permitted use of devices with access to the internet if approved by the Person in Charge of the Hospital, and further, that he is only permitted to use those devices while directly supervised by staff.
The panel is aware that St. Joseph’s hospital in Hamilton has de-designated their units and no longer operate on designations of general versus secure. However, were it a different hospital, the panel would have ordered Mr. Lewis be detained on a secure unit to ensure the safety of the public and a higher staff to patient supervision ratio given the recent events.
The panel has carefully considered all of the evidence, the submissions of the parties and the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Code with the paramount consideration being the safety of the public. Further, we have considered the mental state of Mr. Lewis, his reintegration into society and other needs, and concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
DATED this 14th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Greenwood Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board