Ontario Review Board
Re: Alessandro Orru
ORB File No: 2694
Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 14, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. M.V.A. Prakash Dr. M. Mamak Ms. M. den Haan Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing: Accused: Alessandro Orru Counsel: Ms. S. Dubb
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Darby
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 27, 2025)
Introduction
On February 27, 1998, Mr. Alessandro Orru was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of prowl by night and criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB” or “Board”), dated October 10, 2024, detaining him at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “Hospital”).
On October 14, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened to review Mr. Orru’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
On behalf of her client, Ms. Dubb informed the Board that Mr. Orru did not want to attend the hearing and requested to proceed in his absence. She stated that he was particularly agitated the morning of the hearing. Dr. Darby noted that Mr. Orru finds it very stressful to attend ORB hearings and did not object to Mr. Orru not attending the hearing. Mr. Orru was excused from attending the hearing pursuant to the s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code jurisdiction.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. On behalf of the Hospital, Dr. Darby submitted that Mr. Orru remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Disposition without changes.
Ms. Dubb conceded for the purposes of the hearing that Mr. Orru remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Both counsel for the Attorney General and for Mr. Orru supported the Hospital’s position that the continuation of the Detention Order Disposition is both necessary and appropriate. The panel was therefore presented with a joint submission for its consideration.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are summarized in last year’s Reasons as follows:
“According to the Police Report, on January 7, 1998, York Regional Police were called to a residence in Woodbridge. When the officers arrived, a young female answered the door and nervously told them that a young male had rung the doorbell and fled and that he was hiding across the street. The officers saw the male hiding in the front porch of the house across the street, spoke to him and arrested him without difficulty.
Police learned that the accused had, earlier that night, called the victim numerous times and was both sexually explicit and derogatory towards her.”
Evidence of the Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence a Hospital Report dated October 2, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Orru, his personal history, his mental health history, and his course in hospital and in the community following the original NCR finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the report in the Reasons.
Mr. Orru has been diagnosed with:
i) Paraphilia NOS (telephone scatologia) ii) Sexual sadism iii) Frotteurism iv) Exhibitionism v) Voyeurism vi) Psychosis, NOS vii) Fragile X Syndrome viii) Pervasive Developmental Disorder
Dr. Van is Mr. Orru’s attending psychiatrist but is currently on leave. Dr. Darby attended the hearing and testified on behalf of the Hospital. Dr. Darby indicated that he has known Mr. Orru for many years, both as his inpatient psychiatrist and in the community. Dr. Darby stated that he had reviewed Mr. Orru’s file, he had discussed it with Dr. Van, and he had met with Mr. Orru the week prior to the hearing.
Dr. Darby testified that Mr. Orru has had a good first year residing in the community. No inappropriate phone calls were made during the treatment year, and no concerns were raised with his computer use. The main issues experienced by Mr. Orru’s housing staff and by the treatment team are standard issues for Mr. Orru. Mr. Orru can become particularly frustrated and difficult to deal with. When he is frustrated, he indicates that he wants to move to somewhere else. The week prior to the hearing, Mr. Orru stated that he wanted to go to Hamilton.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Darby testified that the primary issue at Mr. Orru’s housing is staff burnout. His housing is not at risk and Reena House is committed to making the arrangement work, but Mr. Orru’s behaviour takes a toll on staff.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Orru, Dr. Darby testified that it is not realistic and there is no chance that Mr. Orru will move into less supervised housing during the treatment year. It will be a slow process for him to be able to manage unsupervised in the community, and due to Mr. Orru’s complex issues, the transition process will be slow. Mr. Orru’s forensic dual diagnosis makes it extremely challenging to support him, and Mr. Orru has experienced a conflicted relationship with every treatment team that he has worked with both in and out of the Hospital.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Darby indicated that Mr. Orru is capable to consent to treatment and has refused treatment with Provera. Mr. Orru’s autism spectrum disorder plays an important role in his presentation. Remaining issues for Mr. Orru include residual paranoia, which is a function of his mental illness. Dr. Darby does not anticipate any changes being made to Mr. Orru’s medication.
Mr. Orru’s current housing is permanent housing, but it is possible that Reena House will request respite, which will lead to Mr. Orru returning to the Hospital for a period of time and then returning to his community housing. Mr. Orru currently requires 1:1 supervision when he is in the community, though it is possible that he will have some access to the community without 1:1 supervision within the treatment year.
Mr. Orru’s current housing is specialized for dual diagnosis patients. There are eight residents in Mr. Orru’s current housing, two or three of whom are forensic patients. Dr. Darby stated that Mr. Orru always experiences difficult interpersonal relationships with staff and co-clients. He views people through a paranoid lens and perceives that he is being treated poorly in comparison with other people. In Dr. Darby’s opinion, Mr. Orru “tolerates interactions” and has an extremely limited ability with respect to relationships with others.
No further evidence was called.
Analysis and Disposition
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties maintained their initial positions that the existing Detention Disposition should remain in place without change.
The Board agrees that upon consideration of all the evidence, it is absolutely clear that Mr. Orru remains a significant threat to public safety. As noted at page 78 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Orru has very limited insight into his illness or need for medication. The Board relies on the Risk Assessment at page 82 of the Hospital Report that:
when weighing Mr. Orru’s pertinent risk and protective factors, his risk of future violence, including serious harm akin to the index offences, would be high in the context of an absolute discharge. In contrast, should he remain subject to a detention order with community living (in supervised accommodations), his risk of future violence would be moderate. His risk of serious harm would be moderate, and his risk of imminent violence would be low. His overall level of protection was deemed to be moderate.
It is clear that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. The panel is satisfied based on Dr. Darby’s testimony about Mr. Orru’s ability to interact with other people that 24 hours of daily supervision is necessary and that public safety would be compromised with any lesser term for supervision.
The panel notes that it is very important for Mr. Orru to attend his annual hearings, and the Board hopes that Mr. Orru will see that it is in his best interest to attend his next ORB hearing.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Orru’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Orru’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 27th day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. den Haan Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board