Re Menno John Hoffele, 2025 CanLII 120422

Ontario Review Board

Re: Menno John Hoffele

ORB File No: 8295

Hearing held on: Wednesday, September 24, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. G. Stones Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. M. McKinnon

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Menno John Hoffele Counsel: Mr. C.P. Dobson

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated November 20, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 5, 2023, the accused, Menno John Hoffele, was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual assault (x2), assault (x3) and mischief not exceeding $5000, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated October 7, 2024, Mr. Hoffele was ordered to be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre”) St. Joseph's Health Care London. The Disposition provided privileges up to and including residing in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. On September 24, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for the purpose of reviewing the finding that Mr. Hoffele is unfit to stand trial and a review of his Disposition pursuant to ss. 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Hoffele was in attendance at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Dobson. Counsel for the hospital was Ms. Zamprogna and counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario, was Mr. Rows.

Alleged Index Offences

3. The circumstances of the alleged index offences are taken from the Hospital Report, as follows:

“In the first offence, on June 7, 2021, Mr. Hoffele sexually assaulted the complainant by grabbing her breast. He had been speaking with her and asking for hugs and kisses. The incident was reported nine days later, and in September of that year, Mr. Hoffele turned himself into the police with the assistance of community living support workers. He was charged with sexual assault and released on bail. In the second set of charges, which occurred on August 5, 2022, Mr. Hoffele assaulted a community living social worker. He had come to a community living centre but was early for his appointment. He was told to return at a later hour but came back quickly, kicked a door, and grabbed the worker about the neck, causing her breathing difficulty. He left when he knew the police had been called. Community living workers noted that Mr. Hoffele had been suffering a mental health decline following the death of his mother. He was charged with assault.

On April 10, 2023, Mr. Hoffele sexually assaulted a woman at a public transit shelter by grabbing her breast and vaginal area. He was charged with sexual assault.

On April 18, 2023, he became angry at a support worker who attended at his apartment unit. He threw cigarette butts at her and yelled profanities. The worker left the apartment and locked herself in her car. Mr. Hoffele followed her, yelling and raising his fists in a threatening way. The worker was able to leave her vehicle and go to another person’s apartment. Mr. Hoffele attended that person’s apartment and confronted her. He pushed her to the ground and entered the apartment, then knocked over and shattered a fish tank. He was soon arrested and seemed to be under the influence of intoxicants. He was charged with assault (x2) and mischief (under $5000).”

Criminal Record

4. Mr. Hoffele does not have a criminal record.

Current Diagnoses

5. The current diagnoses taken from the Hospital Report are:

Intellectual Developmental Disorder

Rule out Paraphilic Disorder vs inappropriate sexual behaviour due to cognitive/adaptive limitations

Background and Personal Information

6. As set out in the Hospital Report, very little is known about Mr. Hoffele’s history and background. Due to the severity of his cognitive impairment and unreliability as an informant, information provided by Mr. Hoffele is limited and highly suspect. Information in the hospital files suggest that Mr. Hoffele was severely neglected as a child. His mother and father separated when he was seven years old. Mr. Hoffele resided with his father and stepmother who did not care for him. It was reported that he attended school wearing diapers. Ultimately, he was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society. At the age of seven, Mr. Hoffele was admitted to the Children’s Psychiatric Research Institute (CPRI) in London for a period of one year. On discharge, it was reported that he was no longer wearing diapers and had improved in his ability to speak. However, it was noted that he had significant problems with communicating, anger, and poor interpersonal skills.

7. The only information with respect to Mr. Hoffele’s education comes from his self-report. He stated that he did attend school but does not know what grade of education he obtained. He acknowledged having major behavioural issues which included fighting, lying, stealing, truancy and running away from home. He reported that he remained in school until he was 21 years old in special education classes. He has never been steadily employed but has done odd jobs like lawn cutting and snow removal.

8. Mr. Hoffele has a long history of involvement with supportive programming in the community such as Community Living Guelph Wellington. In 2008 he was assessed by a neurodevelopmental psychiatrist. A discharge summary noted that Mr. Hoffele suffered significant executive function deficits, including poor impulse control, problem solving skills and dysregulated mood but there was no clear psychiatric diagnosis. It was recommended that he reside in a highly structured environment with strong support available and with few demands placed upon him. Following the initial charge of sexual assault, Mr. Hoffele was referred to the Dual Diagnosis Justice Coordination Program. In assessing Mr. Hoffele, the Program reported that he had a global developmental disability which caused impairment to his adaptive and cognitive functioning. He lacked the ability to learn and apply conceptual, social, and practical skills. He also struggled with his ability to reason and understand consequences.

Position of the Parties

9. At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Zamprogna submitted that in the opinion of the hospital and the treatment team, Mr. Hoffele continues to be unfit to stand trial. She submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment. Mr. Rows supported the position of the hospital. Mr. Dobson also supported the submissions by Ms. Zamprogna but stated that he would be requesting that the Board order a six-month review of the Disposition.

Evidence

10. The evidence at the hearing was presented by Dr. Quinn. He is Mr. Hoffele’s attending psychiatrist and the co-author of the Hospital Report. Dr. Quinn was asked about the diagnosis on the Hospital Report which included “rule out paraphilic disorder.” Dr. Quinn stated that the “courtship behaviour” displayed by Mr. Hoffele might fall under the diagnosis of paraphilia. However, he stated that it is also possible that the symptoms are a result of Mr. Hoffele’s intellectual disability. He stated that this is purely a theoretical distinction and would not have bearing on future treatment or risk management. Dr. Quinn said that Mr. Hoffele’s behaviour has improved during the last reporting year due to the introduction of antipsychotic medications. He has displayed inappropriate behaviour on a number of occasions, including asking staff members to join him in the bathtub. Dr. Quinn said that Mr. Hoffele has no insight into his major mental illness. Mr. Hoffele is incapable to consent to treatment, and his Substitute Decision Maker (SDM) is the Public Guardian and Trustee (PG and T). Mr. Hoffele has been prescribed antipsychotic medications in order to assist in managing his aggression and assaultive behaviour. This resulted in side effects including a tremor, so the dosage has been lowered. The treatment team have now added a new medication, Pristiq, an antidepressant to assist in managing Mr. Hoffele’s symptoms. The team have developed a behavioural plan which is designed to mitigate Mr. Hoffele’s behaviour. Substance use has not been an issue for Mr. Hoffele either in the hospital or in the community.

11. Dr. Quinn adopted the risk assessment conclusions from the HCR-20 found on pages 23 and 24 of the Hospital Report. Mr. Hoffele remains a moderate to high risk for violence in the context of a detention disposition while living in the highly supervised hospital setting. His risk would increase to high if his liberties were increased and he was residing in the community with inadequate supervision and support. Dr. Quinn also adopted the assessment of significant risk found on pages 26 and 27 of the Hospital Report which concludes that Mr. Hoffele remains a significant threat to the safety of the community.

12. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele does have the privilege of access to the community accompanied by staff or a delegate approved by the person in charge. Mr. Hoffele had been exercising this privilege on a weekly basis with the accompaniment of a person through the Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) program who would take him out into the community to movies or similar activities once per week. Unfortunately, that person went on leave in August and has not yet been replaced. Mr. Hoffele was encouraged to become involved in Community Living Elgin Programs in the community but found them to be too stressful and he did not enjoy them, so they are no longer part of his routine.

13. With respect to accommodation, Dr. Quinn testified that Mr. Hoffele needs significant support if he is to reside in the community. He needs assistance with hygiene and the other activities of daily living. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele will also need supervision in a community placement if there are female residents or female staff. This is based on past experience that female staff and residents would be vulnerable as targets of Mr. Hoffele’s unwanted attention. Dr. Quinn stated that it is likely that Mr. Hoffele will require 24-hour a day, seven day a week supervision, but it is possible that this level of support will not be absolutely necessary. The treatment team would like to keep his housing as broad as possible in order to assist in a possible placement in the community. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele remains connected to the community living organizations in the Guelph area which is where he was residing prior to the alleged index offences. When asked how Mr. Hoffele was able to reside successfully in the community in the past, Dr. Quinn stated that although there were notations of some problematic behaviours, the presence and assistance of Mr. Hoffele’s mother acted as a mitigating factor. Unfortunately, she has now passed away. Mr. Hoffele does not have any approved persons and lacks family support.

14. Dr. Quinn was asked about the transition from the hospital to a DSO bed in the community. He testified that DSO operates on a “best fit” basis when assigning beds. Patients such as Mr. Hoffele, who are detained in hospital, are often at the lower end of the “best fit” list. A further difficulty is that the Wellington County DSO organization have made it clear that they cannot provide housing to Mr. Hoffele. However, the Ministry of Community and Social Services have refused their request to remove Mr. Hoffele from their list of patients. Since an individual can only be on one list at a time, this is effectively a roadblock to transitioning Mr. Hoffele back to the community. Dr. Quinn was of the opinion that as a forensic patient, this is a stigmatizing factor in trying to place Mr. Hoffele. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele would remain in the hospital until adequate housing is found in the community.

15. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele is “likely” unfit to stand trial. Although he is able to give answers which indicate an understanding of the role of the Crown, his defence lawyer, the judge, a plea and the possible consequences of conviction, Dr. Quinn described these as “scripted answers.” Mr. Hoffele cannot provide any information on the outstanding charges. Dr. Quinn said that Mr. Hoffele is unable to integrate new information. In Dr. Quinn’s opinion, as a result of Mr. Hoffele’s intellectual disabilities he cannot meaningfully participate in a trial.

16. In response to a question from Mr. Rows, Dr. Quinn stated that although Mr. Hoffele would prefer to be placed in the Guelph area, he would accept a residence anywhere within the catchment area of Community Living Guelph Wellington. This is where the difficulty arises in that Community Living Guelph Wellington have made it clear that they will not be able to house Mr. Hoffele and that he should not be on their list. The Ministry has refused permission to allow Mr. Hoffele to be placed on a different list.

17. In response to questions from Mr. Dobson, Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele has only been able to achieve level 3 privileges for the past reporting year. He has some physical difficulties which cause dizziness and is prone to falling. As a result, and out of concern for his safety, the treatment team are reluctant to allow him unsupervised or unaccompanied access to the community. With respect to the depression medication, Dr. Quinn agreed that this is situational as a result of him being confined to the hospital. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele will likely require life-long supervision and support in order to reside in the community. Without the assistance of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to move Mr. Hoffele forward, the default is that he will remain in the hospital.

18. Following questions by the Board, Dr. Quinn stated that the Southwest Centre does not have a Dual Diagnosis unit to accommodate Mr. Hoffele’s particular needs. When asked if a transfer to Waypoint (where a Dual Diagnosis Unit does exist) had been considered, Dr. Quinn said it had not because Mr. Hoffele does not require the high level of security found at Waypoint. Dr. Quinn also acknowledged that Mr. Hoffele was able to provide answers displaying some understanding of the parties to a criminal trial, and that he would have been considered marginally fit under the previous Taylor test. However, he is unable to apply that knowledge to meaningfully participate in any criminal trial. As an example, Mr. Hoffele believes that the only outcome of the trial is that he might go to jail.

Submissions

19. Ms. Zamprogna reiterated the submission made at the outset of the hearing. She stated that the evidence from Dr. Quinn is that Mr. Hoffele cannot meaningfully participate in the trial process and is therefore unfit to stand trial. In her submission the evidence clearly supports the necessity of a continuation of the Detention Order in order to protect the safety of the public. Mr. Hoffele requires a highly structured and supervised accommodation in the community and the treatment team will continue to work towards this goal.

20. Mr. Rows supported the submission of the hospital.

21. Mr. Dobson also supported the submission of the hospital. In addition, he requested that the Board consider ordering that there be a six-month review of the Disposition to monitor the progress towards finding accommodation for Mr. Hoffele in the community. Mr. Dobson also stated that he had advised Mr. Rows that the required prima facie hearing under s. 672.33 of the Criminal Code appears to be overdue.

Analysis and Disposition

22. The threshold issue for the Board is whether or not Mr. Hoffele is fit to stand trial. For many years, the assessment of an accused to stand trial utilized what became known as the Taylor Test , often summarized as the “limited cognitive capacity test.” The test was essentially a series of questions about the role of the parties to the trial, the meaning of an oath and the potential consequences. In 2023 the Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision of a five justice panel in R. v. Bharwani 2023 ONCA 203. The decision expanded the factors to be considered in assessing fitness and found that an accused must have a reality based understanding of the trial process. This decision was in turn appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada which released its judgment in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 on July 25, 2025. In upholding the decision of the OCA, Justice O’Bonsawin, writing for the majority in a 6:3 decision stated:

6I disagree. As I will explain, an accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence

And in summary

77To conclude, the text, statutory context, and purpose of the definition of “unfit to stand trial” support an interpretation of the capacity threshold that requires an accused to be able to make reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence and intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court. This necessitates a reality-based understanding of the nature or object and possible consequences of the proceedings, as well as an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and to select between those options when making decisions. The accused is not required to make decisions in their best interests, but cannot be overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder when making and communicating these decisions.

23. The Board accepts the uncontested evidence of Dr. Quinn with respect to Mr. Hoffele’s fitness to stand trial. Although he is able to identify the participants in the court process and to answer some basic questions, Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele would have been marginally fit under the prior Taylor test. However, Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele has no concept of the charges that he is facing and the possible consequences of them, he is unable to integrate new information into his limited understanding of the court process and could not participate in a meaningful way in a trial. On the basis of the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Bharwani and the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bharwani, Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Hoffele was not fit to stand trial. The Board is unanimous in accepting his opinion in this regard.

24. The evidence of Dr. Quinn as confirmed by the Hospital Report is that Mr. Hoffele requires a highly structured and supervised setting in order to be safely managed. Even within the structure of the hospital his risk assessment places him at a moderate to high risk of violent offending. The risk moves to high were he to be in a less structured or supervised setting in the community. As submitted by Ms. Zamprogna, at this time Mr. Hoffele finds himself “stuck in a loop.” Although he is registered on a list with the Community Living Guelph Wellington, it has been made clear that they will not be able to provide him with a suitable residence in the community. At the same time, the Ministry of Community and Social Services will not allow Mr. Hoffele’s name to be taken off the Guelph Wellington list and placed on the list for a different residence in another catchment area. The evidence of Dr. Quinn is that the treatment team are attempting to resolve this bureaucratic standoff with a view to accessing a greater geographical area in which to search for a suitable residence for Mr. Hoffele. Mr. Dobson requested that there be a six-month review of the Disposition so that the Board can monitor the residence situation. The Board is unanimous in concluding that it is not necessary to provide for a six-month review at this time. The evidence is that the treatment team are working towards resolving the impasse and finding Mr. Hoffele suitable accommodation in the community. In the alternative, the parties have the option of requesting an early review should circumstances warrant.