Re: Julian Soares
ORB File No: 7223
Hearing held on: Friday, September 19, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal Members: Dr. S. Nagari (by Zoom) Dr. M. Choptiany Ms. J. Greenwood Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Julian Soares Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 14, 2025)
Introduction
Julian Soares was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR) on September 21, 2017, on charges of criminal harassment and failure to comply with a probation order, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Soares is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 2, 2024, with Reasons dated October 30, 2024, conditionally discharging him and including certain privileges.
On September 19, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review the Disposition in accordance with the requirements of s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Boissonneault, counsel for Mr. Soares, attended the hearing as did Mr. Soares. A Hospital Report dated August 15, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing. In addition to the documentary evidence, Dr. Wang, the attending psychiatrist, gave evidence at the hearing.
Issues at the Hearing
- The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Soares continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, 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.
Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the hospital, recommended that Mr. Soares continue on a conditional discharge with certain clauses, the residence and consent to treatment clauses being removed from the disposition. The hospital also recommended but left to the Board to determine whether an early hearing should be stipulated.
Counsel Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the recommendation of the hospital.
Ms. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Soares, submitted to the Board that Mr. Soares no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and should be discharged absolutely. In the alternative should the Board find Mr. Soares did represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, she submitted that the current disposition, with the removal of the two clauses would be supported by her client. Further, an early hearing in four to six months should be stipulated once the issues to be discussed are resolved.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offence have been taken from the last year’s Reasons for Dispositions:
“The victim in this matter was a counsellor at a church and enrolled as a full-time student at college.
In April 2016, [the victim] met the accused, Mr. Julian Soares, at her church and started to provide guidance and counselling to Mr. Soares as she had done for many other people who attended the church. Though the victim thought that Mr. Soares suffered from a mental illness, she felt it was her obligation to provide ongoing counselling to him. However, she suffered harassment from Mr. Soares for the next several months to the point where he was arrested with two counts of Criminal Harassment and Threaten Death. Justice Cole sentenced Mr. Soares on January 27, 2017, at Toronto West Court. He was given a $1.00 fine followed by 12 months’ probation with several conditions.
Charge 1: Failure to Comply with Probation Order
On January 27, 2017, Mr. Julian Soares did, while bound by a probation order made on January 27, 2017, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with such order, namely, report in person to a probation officer immediately of his release from custody and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in his supervision, contrary to section 733.1, subsection (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Repeatedly Communicating Directly or Indirectly w/ Person
Less than one week after Mr. Soares was sentenced, on Wednesday February 1, 2017, Mr. Soares attended at the church for the [victim] looking for her. He approached the mother of [the victim]and asked if he could sit by her. The mother responded “No”. Due to Mr. Soares’ past harassment, a security team had to be put in place to ensure the safety of [the victim]and other members of the church. It was security that approached Mr. Soares and directed him to leave the premises immediately. When he failed to comply, security physically escorted Mr. Soares off the premises. While doing this, Mr. Soares advised that he would be coming back on Sunday for [the victim].
On Thursday February 2, 2017, while [the victim] was at school, she started to receive multiple text messages from her friends stating there was a male looking for her. [The victim] became extremely frightened, and her first thought was that Mr. Soares would hurt people within the school. As she ran to her classroom, other classmates were frightened as well. Mr. Soares stormed into multiple classrooms looking for [the victim] in the middle of lectures. When Mr. Soares could not find her, he attended the main office where he was asked if the school had a counselling program. He fled toward the elevators and was not seen afterwards.
On Sunday, February 5, 2017, after being trespassed from the church property the previous Wednesday, Mr. Soares attended church and intentionally sat in the front row where he would be able to contact [the victim] knowing she was part of the choir. He started asking the ushers for [the victim] by name. Security called 911 to ensure everyone’s safety.
[The victim] is absolutely terrified of Mr. Soares. He has been ordered several times to have no contact with her. [The victim] and the church have been put in a position to hire private security to protect [the victim]and the other churchgoers. Mr. Soares refused to stop criminally harassing her. Police attended the church, Mr. Soares was arrested on scene, his rights to counsel were given and he was transported to 31 Division where he was held for a show cause hearing.”
Background and Psychiatric History
Mr. Soares’s personal background and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing, and need not be repeated in these Reasons.
Mr. Soares has a lengthy psychiatric history involving twenty MHA related incidents and/or Apprehensions from 2011 to 2015. His father regularly called police following his son’s bizarre behaviour, including unresponsiveness, staring, and catatonic states. These admissions were often the result of a deterioration in his mental state arising from non-adherence with medication. Notably, from 2009 to 2014 he experienced a period of stability when he was adherent to his Clozapine, an antipsychotic medication. He eventually stopped taking it which led to further hospital admissions. Mr. Soares has been subject to a community treatment order (CTO) which was short-lived with a readmission to hospital.
On September 21, 2017, Mr. Soares was found Not Criminally Responsible on account of a mental disorder on the index offences. He was returned to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to await his initial Disposition hearing by the ORB. On December 20, 2017, Mr. Soares was transferred to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences pursuant to a Disposition dated December 14, 2017.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Soares’ current diagnosis is Schizophrenia.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital's evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Wang to supplement the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at this hearing.
Dr. Wang provided an update to the Hospital Report since the writing of the report. Approximately one to two weeks ago the treatment team learned that Mr. Soares had symptoms that were more significant than the team had previously realized. The team’s clinicians noticed that he had some written material in his apartment with unusual content. Dr. Wang advised that this written material referred to celebrities including a celebrity by the name of Drake who was communicating with him. Dr. Wang spoke with Mr. Soares about these matters and Mr. Soares advised that he believed that he was in contact with Drake. This was not something that Mr. Soares had previously discussed with the team.
Dr. Wang advised he met with Mr. Soares to review this matter and determined that Mr. Soares felt that he would be provided with an apartment by Drake. It was Dr. Wang's evidence that Mr. Soares was suffering from some residual symptoms which were not previously disclosed or known to the treatment team. The team had previously believed he was fully in remission as he had denied having hallucinations or paranoia. Dr. Wang advised that these types of symptoms were difficult to uncover because Mr. Soares did not readily discuss these matters and it was serendipitous that the team discovered the written materials in his apartment. Dr. Wang was fair in his evidence that nothing in the materials disclosed any violence or aggression and that was not the treatment team’s concerns. The concern stems from the fact that he continues to experience symptoms which are in keeping with other aspects of his presentation that are unknown to the team.
Dr. Wang advised we are never entirely sure how reliable his self-report is. He will frequently say he has done a task or a chore, but we are unclear whether he is in fact doing those things. For example, Dr. Wang advised that Mr. Soares had informed his clinician he had not left his apartment in the last two weeks. When Dr. Wang asked about this, Mr. Soares had advised Dr. Wang he had been going out. Dr. Wang explained part of his concern is Mr. Soares’ inconsistency and that he is in fact doing something different than what he reports to the treatment team. Either he is not disclosing all of the details or perhaps not being fully open. For example, Mr. Soares had indicated he had spoken with a former family doctor in the community, but the treatment team was not able to confirm this.
Dr. Wang was asked what the treatment team’s plan will be going forward in the coming reporting year. Dr. Wang advised that the team would want to probe this most recent incident involving the written materials referencing Drake and try to understand what brought this on and consider whether or not Mr. Soares’ current medication regime is optimized given the negative symptoms and despite his report of how he is doing.
Dr. Wang gave evidence about Mr. Soares’ current treatment regime. He noted that Mr. Soares’ clozapine levels are quite high, it is not clear if he requires a higher dose, but given the residual symptoms, this is something that Dr. Wang will continue to consider.
Dr. Wang also gave evidence about whether it was appropriate to recommend an absolute discharge at the current hearing. Dr. Wang's opinion evidence was that Mr. Soares continued to represent a significant threat and was not at a point where the team could recommend an absolute discharge. Dr. Wang went on to explain that although an absolute discharge had been considered throughout the reporting year that was when Mr. Soares’ symptoms appeared to be in remission. Dr. Wang fairly highlighted to the Board that Mr. Soares had no behaviour issues and no adherence issues with his medication. However, when Dr. Wang engaged with the person in charge of the hospital and the treatment team, there were some broader concerns about Mr. Soares’ engagement, his ability to organize and remain independent in his tasks, and his ability to comply with medication and blood work if not within the structured support of the Forensic Outpatient Service. Dr. Wang advised the board that absent this high level of structured support, Mr. Soares could quickly decompensate and present a risk to the safety of the public.
Dr. Wang also advised the panel the treatment team will work with Mr. Soares to have a cognitive assessment performed to assess the level of impairment or deficits he is experiencing. This was recommended by the psychologist and may assist the team in how to best support Mr. Soares.
Dr. Wang was questioned by Counsel for the Attorney General about the level of support needed by Mr. Soares to remain on Clozapine, and the support provided by the Psychosis Clinic, and Dr. Wang clarified that this clinic does not provide the level of support that an Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACT team) would provide. However, Dr. Wang did confirm that should Mr. Soares be discharged absolutely, the treatment team would do their best to bridge the gap in care, pending Mr. Soares acceptance to other supports.
Ms. Boissonneault cross-examined Dr. Wang about Mr. Soares recent symptoms, and confirmed that although Mr. Soares had exhibited some evidence of a return in his psychotic symptoms they did not manifest as any violent, aggressive, or inappropriate behaviour. Ms. Boissonneault suggested that Mr. Soares had not had aggressive, or violent behaviour in some years, which Dr. Wang agreed with. However, Dr. Wang advised that the treatment team is concerned about Mr. Soares' level of transparency with the team, but for finding the notes he had in his apartment, the team would not have known he had been experiencing such serious psychotic symptoms.
Ms. Boissonneault also asked Dr. Wang a number of questions about Mr. Soares’ suitability for an absolute discharge and established that Mr. Soares is willing to work with any follow up care, and is generally compliant with the treatment team’s suggestions. Dr. Wang also gave a number of examples where Mr. Soares had committed to engage or follow up on tasks independently but had not.
Dr. Wang was asked questions by the panel and confirmed that the treatment team is of the unanimous view that Mr. Soares continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public given the risk of non-compliance with medication, and his lack of insight and internal motivation to continue treatment. Mr. Soares still struggles with the ability to organize himself which is tied to compliance. These are his most significant risk factors.
Further with questions from the panel, Dr. Wang confirmed that there is no alternative prescriber in the community that could step in to prescribe medication for Mr. Soares at this time. Although the forensic outpatient team could attempt to bridge the gap, they would have no mechanism to ensure compliance should Mr. Soares decompensate.
On the issue of removing the treatment clause, Dr. Wang clarified that medication compliance is a key issue for Mr. Soares but that he is fully compliant with the full support of his treatment team. Provided he has a team he is compliant, and does not require the condition to comply. The goal for the team is to work with Mr. Soares to transition him towards less support overall in the coming reporting year, in the hopes this prepares him for an absolute discharge.
Analysis and Conclusion
Mr. Soares had a productive year overall and should be commended for the positive progress he has made. While Mr. Soares has taken a number of positive steps and has a strong therapeutic relationship with his treatment team, there remain a number of outstanding issues that once resolved may provide more support for an absolute discharge.
At this time, given the evidence before the panel, medication compliance is a key component of managing Mr. Soares risk. Without medication, he would likely decompensate and re-offend as outlined in the re-offence scenario in the Hospital report. In Winko the Supreme Court of Canada outlined that in coming to this conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board must closely examine a range of evidence including the circumstances of the index offence, the course of the accused’s treatment, the present mental state of the accused, the accused’s medical condition, the accused’s plans for the future, the level of support existing for the accused in the community and the recommendations by the treatment team and experts who have examined the accused. In reaching this conclusion, the Board relies on the evidence of Dr. Wang and the Hospital Report.
Managing Mr. Soares’ risk involves the treatment team ensuring medication compliance. At this time, there is no plan in place to assist Mr. Soares with medication management. After weighing and considering all of the evidence and the thorough submissions of Counsel, and the relevant case law referred to, the panel finds Mr. Soares does continue to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and as such is best managed on the current disposition, with the removal of the two clauses regarding treatment and as requested by the parties.
The panel also considered whether it should order an early hearing and declined to make such an Order. Given the evidence at the hearing, the hospital agreed to request an early hearing should these issues be resolved and Mr. Soares no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and the panel trusts they will do so.
The panel has carefully considered all of the evidence, the joint submission 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. Soares, 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```