Ontario Review Board
Re: Annette I. Leis
ORB File No: 5968
Hearing held on: Friday, October 24, 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: Ms. J. Mills Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. M. Chamberlain Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing: Accused: Annette I. Leis Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Pearce
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 19, 2025)
Introduction
On September 30, 2011, Annette Leis was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon, mischief - not exceeding five thousand dollars, failure to comply with probation order (x4), possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, fail to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance (x4), and utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
Ms. Leis is currently subject to a Decision and Disposition dated August 1, 2024, detaining her within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or the “Hospital”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On October 24, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at Ontario Shores to hold a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Leis was present for her hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
The issues to be determined are whether Ms. Leis poses 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.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Dr. Pearce stated the Hospital’s recommendation that there be no change to Ms. Leis’ current Disposition. This position was supported by Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General.
Ms. Perez informed the Board that her client was also in agreement with the Hospital’s position. She noted that it was important to her client that the community living privilege to remain as part of the disposition.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Amended Reasons for Decision and Disposition, as follows:
“While a patient at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, Ms. Leis harassed her ex-boyfriend via telephone. Upon her release, she went to her ex-boyfriend’s residence. She hit a City of Peterborough Handivan driver with a branch when he said he could not take her to the hospital. She also refused to leave a shelter after being evicted for assaulting staff. At the police station she smeared feces on herself and flooded the cell, causing mischief. Throughout these events she was on a probation order requiring her to: keep the peace and be of good behaviour and not to have any communication with her ex-boyfriend. She was also on an officer in charge undertaking with similar terms.”
Background and Current Diagnoses:
- Ms. Leis’ diagnoses are listed in the Hospital Report as follows:
- Schizoaffective Disorder, most recent episode depressed, severe
- Borderline Personality Disorder
- Cannabis and Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission
Ms. Leis’ mother reported that Ms. Leis achieved her developmental milestones at age-appropriate intervals. Ms. Leis was rebellious at a young age. She abused alcohol and/or illicit drugs and she would not follow direction. She was verbally aggressive and she attempted to run from the family home. Ms. Leis eventually moved to Toronto to reside with her godmother. Her parents separated in 1988.
Ms. Leis has a younger sister that lives in Florida and other family members in southern Ontario.
Ms. Leis’ first admission to hospital regarding her mental health was in 1994 and she had multiple other admissions prior to the index offences. She has a criminal history dating back to 2007 for charges including uttering threats, harassment and assault.
Ms. Leis has four children that were taken from her care and raised by others. Most recently, Ms. Leis gave birth to her youngest child, who was born on September 24, 2010. Ms. Leis raised this child for several months, until the CAS become involved. His paternal grandmother then cared for Wyatt.
Evidence at Hearing
The Record at the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, the Decision dated November 15, 2024 the Reasons for Decision dated November 26, 2024, the Decision and Disposition dated August 1, 2024 the Amended Reasons for Decision and Disposition dated August 30, 2024. The exhibits at the hearing included the Hospital Report dated June 18, 2025 as well as the Addendum to the Hospital Report dated October 7, 2025.
Ms. Leis’ progress since her last annual review is summarized in a Hospital Report dated June 18, 2025 as follows:
“…there have been numerous notable behavioural incidents involving Ms. Leis. Generally, these incidents were related to Ms. Leis not adhering to unit rules and expectations and not following direction from staff. There was one incident of physical aggression toward a co-patient which required Ms. Leis to spend some time in the PICU. Overall and on FAU, Ms. Leis was noted to spend most of her time in her bedroom. Ms. Leis has had difficulty completing ADLs and managing her hygiene and continence. Ms. Leis would also refuse medications on occasion and be dismissive of staff support and encouragement.
To her credit, Ms. Leis has had periods of time in which she is more engaged, pleasant with staff and her peers, and goal directed. She has utilized off unit privileges, had visits, and participated in assessments and recreational activities with the interprofessional team. However, Ms. Leis has had difficulty in maintaining consistent progress. For many months, it was not clear why that was the case; the team wondered whether a delirium had re-surfaced, whether she was inadequately treated for her psychotic disorder, whether she was depressed, or whether she was experiencing an early-onset cognitive disorder (as she was disoriented at times, seemed confused and disorganized, and perseverated on returning to her apartment despite repeated feedback in this regard). Eventually and given difficulty getting her to progress further, a geriatric psychiatrist at Ontario Shores, Dr. Waxman, was consulted. Dr. Waxman met with Ms. Leis, performed some cognitive testing, and provided feedback to the team. She concluded that Ms. Leis was suffering from a depressive episode, and she did not feel a cognitive disorder was present. More aggressive antidepressant pharmacotherapy was recommended and implemented, with Ms. Leis’s reluctant agreement. ECT was also considered a possible treatment option, but Ms. Leis was not so inclined. With antidepressant treatment, she began to exhibit slow improvement to her mental status, though it remained difficult to motivate her and to have her engage consistently with her care providers. She continued to urinate in bed and defecate in her room and/or common areas of the unit.”
Dr. Pearce testified on behalf of the hospital. The doctor adopted the contents of the Hospital Report as well as the Addendum to the Report. He stated that he relied on both Reports to support his position that Ms. Leis remained a significant threat to the safety of the public. Dr. Pearce also provided the update to the Board that Ms. Leis had continued to improve over the weeks leading up to the hearing. She had stabilized and been easier to work with.
Dr. Pearce testified that Ms. Leis very much wants to live in the community. The treatment team felt that, if Ms. Leis continued to improve, the next step would be for her to transfer to the general forensic unit prior to living in the community. Ms. Leis, however, has stated that she does not want to move to another unit within the Hospital. Dr. Pearce said that the Hospital will try to work with Ms. Leis to look at creative ways to work towards her return to community living. When Dr. Pearce was asked about why she is resistant to moving to another unit within the Hospital, Ms. Leis interjected “better the devil you know”. Dr. Pearce agreed that Ms. Leis may just be concerned with moving to a unit that was unknown to her. He also noted that she seemed to respond well to the structure of the secure unit.
Dr. Pearce told the Board that Ms. Leis did not want to be on any psychotropic medication and would be unlikely to follow-up with treatment in the community if she were to be conditionally discharged. He felt that this added to the risk she posed to the community.
Dr. Pearce stated that it would be possible for Ms. Leis to go directly into the community from a secure unit if she continued to refuse to go to a general unit. It would be atypical to be discharged directly to the community but it could happen. The Hospital would want to see Ms. Leis have some indirectly supervised time in the community. Dr. Pearce stated that the Hospital wanted to see her move forward and may have to be creative in developing a plan for her to transition to community living.
Ms. Leis had made some improvements in that she was spending more time in the day program at the Hospital and was looking to begin getting passes into the community. She has also been more cooperative in taking her medication recently.
Dr. Pearce stated that he understood that Ms. Leis wanted the community living privilege to remain in her disposition. The Hospital was supporting this as well. He stated that before she would be able to move back into the community, an occupational therapy assessment would need to be updated. He noted that at the time that she returned to the Hospital a year and a half prior, Ms. Leis’ apartment was not in good shape. The doctor felt that the Hospital would be able to get Ms. Leis on waitlists for placements in the community within the next year.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms. Leis addressed the Board. She stated that by staying in the Hospital, the Board was keeping her away from her friends and family and that she misses her children and grandchildren. She wanted to live in the community again. She said that she would miss Dr. Pearce but noted that she would be able to get a new doctor. She said that if she were in the community she could get a job and assist her children financially. She informed the Board that she liked Dr. Pearce and said that he has a sense of humour.
Ms. Leis’ also noted that she wanted to be able to visit with family that lived outside the radius allowed in conditions 2(d) and (e) of her Disposition. After conferring with her client, Ms. Perez suggested that the current condition 2(d) be changed to allow Ms. Leis to have passes into the community, within a 300 kilometre radius of the Hospital instead of the existing radius of 150km. She noted that Ms. Leis would still be required to be accompanied by staff or an approved person.
Dr. Pearce was asked what the Hospital’s position would be to the proposed change. He stated that the Hospital was not opposed to this change and noted that any passes would require an itinerary that would be approved the person in charge. Dr. Pearce did not think it was likely that Ms. Leis would travel as far as a 300 kilometre radius would allow in the coming year but noted that it may be motivating for her to have this option available.
Closing submissions:
At the conclusion of the hearing each party was asked to provide closing submissions to the Board. Dr. Pearce, on behalf of the Hospital submitted that Ms. Leis remained a significant threat to the safety of the public but was pleased to see her recent progress. He stated that she was moving in the right direction and that the Hospital wanted to work with her to develop a plan to move her forward.
Ms. MacDonald submitted that the Crown wished for the existing Disposition to remain in place. This would allow Ms. Leis to go out into the community as soon as she was ready.
Ms. Perez stated that it had been very hard for Ms. Leis to lose her apartment and that she very much wanted to return to living in the community. Ms. Leis was happy that she was now moving forward and was hoping to get back into the community in the future. She further submitted that an increase to the radius for passes into the community could be managed in a way that would keep the public safe, while giving her client the opportunity to visit with family members that lived a little farther away from the Hospital.
Analysis and Conclusion
- The Board unanimously finds that Ms. Leis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Pearce. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report, which notes the following:
“The most relevant historical risk factors for Ms. Leis continue to be her major mental illness (schizoaffective disorder) in conjunction with her personality disorder and historical problems with treatment or supervision response. She does not want to take antipsychotic medication and she would like to live independently. Absent a Disposition of the Board, this lady would stop her medication and discontinue her involvement with assertive care providers. She may resume use of substances, upon a return to the community. While she would likely remain in hospital over the short term, in time psychotic symptoms would return and given her history, there would be a real risk of serious physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public.”
The Board, accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Ms. Leis would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, use of substances and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offences.
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Ms. Leis poses to the safety of the public while still meeting her needs, is a Detention Disposition with one change to the existing privileges; namely that her community privilege passes be increased to allow her to travel up to 300 kilometres accompanied by staff or an approved person. The Board feels that this will provide Ms. Leis with the ability to visit with her family while maintaining the safety to the public.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Pearce and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Ms. Leis’ mental condition, her reintegration into society and her other needs.
DATED this 19th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M. Chamberlain Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board