Ontario Review Board
Re: Trevor A. Severin
ORB File No: 7377
Hearing held on: Friday, October 17, 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. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. J. Cheston Mr. C. Flanagan Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Trevor A. Severin Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 27, 2025)
Introduction:
On June 26, 2018, Trevor Severin was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition dated October 28, 2024, detaining him on the Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “hospital”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On October 17, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at Ontario Shores to review that disposition. Mr. Severin was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Rai.
The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Mr. Severin continues to meet the threshold test of significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate, as well as least onerous and least restrictive disposition, bearing in mind the four factors of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Ms. Marshall, counsel for the hospital, indicated that the hospital’s position is that Mr. Severin continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his current disposition remains that which is necessary and appropriate.
Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Crown, supported the hospital position.
Mr. Rai, on behalf of Mr. Severin, indicated that his client agrees with the position of the hospital. He is not challenging the issue of significant threat at this hearing.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence can be summarized as follows:
“On May 18, 2016, at approximately 00:04 hours, police were called to 65 Gloucester Street. Officers found the victim lying on his back on the sidewalk under a blanket. The victim was bleeding, not moving, and he had no pulse. There was trauma to his head by a large rock that was left beside his head. The rock had been removed from the garden of the apartment building, and another larger rock had also been moved and remained in the dirt by the sidewalk. Mr. Severin and the victim were known to each other. Mr. Severin had assaulted the victim in 2014 by striking him in the head and face several times with a rock.
The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Severin believed that he was owed money by the government on whose behalf he had been acting when he killed the victim.”
Background
Mr. Severin's personal and treatment history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report, Exhibit 1 at this hearing, thus will not be repeated. Briefly summarized, he is presently 33 years of age. He was born in Toronto but moved to Dominica at a young age where he lived with his parents. He would visit his grandmother in Toronto often and lived with her for a period of six months when he was 16 years of age. It is reported that his parents began to notice behavioural changes when he was in his mid-teens. He accused his mother of being a stranger and eventually became assaultive towards her. It was also noted that behavioural changes were seen after he was injured in a car accident 2005. He was admitted to hospital on numerous occasions.
The Hospital Report sets out Mr. Severin’s psychiatric history which began in Dominica with hospitalization in 2009. He had multiple admissions through to the year 2013. Following his return to Toronto in that year, he continued to have multiple hospital admissions. He was described as agitated, aggressive, dismissive, incoherent, highly irritable and sexually inappropriate. There had been instances of violence including his attacking his uncle with a knife and having tried to stab his mother with a fork. Mr. Severin improved with treatment in hospital but was known to be noncompliant following discharge. He lived in the shelter system and was at times homeless and was living at the YMCA at the time of the index offence.
Mr. Severin is reported to have begun consuming alcohol at the age of 12. While he has a history of some marijuana use, the extent is not known. Mr. Severin has a criminal record that includes convictions of assault with a weapon, assault, intimidation and breaches of bail orders.
Following the index offence, Mr. Severin was found unfit to stand trial and regained fitness after treatment in hospital. During that hospitalization at CAMH, he was overtly psychotic and assaultive towards co-patients, requiring locked seclusions every night. Following a finding of fitness, Mr. Severin was maintained in hospital on a Keep Fit Order until the NCR finding in June 2018. He was thereafter transferred to Waypoint Centre. There he assaulted two co-patients. With the introduction of clozapine medication, he showed a slow and steady improvement in his mental state, although his insight into his mental illness and need for medication remained poor. In April 2022, Mr. Severin was transferred to Ontario Shores.
Mr. Severin’s diagnoses are schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. Mr. Severin is incapable with respect to consent to medication and the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) is his Substitute Decision Maker (SDM). Mr. Severin was suspected of suffering from Marfan’s Syndrome, a connective tissue disease, which has not been confirmed through genetic testing.
Two years ago, the treatment team applied for Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) supports and funding for Mr. Severin. He was deemed ineligible because there was no positive evidence or collateral information that indicated that his cognitive and adaptive functioning deficits had an onset prior to age 18. This was appealed without success for the same reason. At the time of last year’s hearing, it was noted that there would be efforts to reach Mr. Severin’s parents in an attempt to get more information. It had been hoped that they would be visiting the hospital during the course of this year which might provide an opportunity to do so. Based on his history and clinical presentation, the treatment team are of the opinion that Mr. Severin will require residence in a living environment with a high degree of support and supervision. Unfortunately, housing options through DSO are not an option.
During the past treatment year, the hospital reports Mr. Severin’s behaviour as including intrusiveness towards his peers and his having difficulty listening to redirection and showing impulsive behaviours. He needs reminders with respect to his behaviour plan.
Dr. Chuong provided evidence. She has been Mr. Severin’s treating psychiatrist on the general forensic unit for just over a year. Mr. Severin remains fairly optimally treated on clozapine and shows no overt symptoms of his psychotic disorder.
Of significant note, Mr. Severin has been working with a behavioural analyst. This began in 2025 with goals of reducing his intrusivity to others and inappropriate sexual behaviours including his unwanted touching of co-patients and staff. These included an incident in the current treatment year where he sexually touched a co-patient by putting his hand to her groin and kissed a female co-patient. Dr. Chuong testified that the behaviour therapist is working on teaching him aspects of consent wherein he must ask for consent before touching any other person. He likes to fist bump with both staff and co-patients and he is being taught that consent must be requested before any such touching. To date he is inconsistently adherent with the plan. His touching behaviours are deemed to be based on issues of impulsivity and aspects of his developmental delays.
Mr. Severin had reached the level of being granted indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, but on the first occasion of using this privilege he did not adhere to his behavioural plan, approaching a co-patient requesting cigarettes. After then demanding to be allowed outside his indirectly supervised privileges were put on hold. He now has accompanied privileges on to hospital grounds. The goal is that once he is able to have three consecutively successful accompanied hospital grounds privileges, he will be eligible to be retried on indirectly supervised hospital and grounds.
The hospital’s efforts to gain information about Mr. Severin’s early years were not successful in the past year and are required in order to make further application for DSO housing and funding. His parents did not visit as had been hoped for and while the hospital was able to contact Mr. Severin’ grandmother they were not able to reach his parents to obtain the necessary information. The hospital also tried to obtain the information from the medical institutions in Canada where Mr. Severin got care, but there was no information available. It is imperative that they be able to provide information from his early childhood in support of the DSO application.
Mr. Severin has been working as a volunteer in clothing boutique. He is proud of his work with the behavioural therapist and his improvements. Mr. Severin’s present goal is to regain indirectly supervised hospital and ground privileges.
He was subject to an OT assessment for housing needs which set out that he will require supervised, structured housing in a group home at such time as he becomes ready for discharge from the hospital. He will need to progress up the privilege ladder before community housing will be considered. He is not at the present time on any waitlists.
Mr. Severin’s risk assessment notes that he would remain a low risk for violence under the recommended detention order but this would be elevated to moderate if he was subject to a conditional discharge. No person has suggested that that would be appropriate at this time. Risk factors noted in the Hospital Report are his major mental illness, poor insight, history of treatment and supervision non-adherence, extreme violence and antisocial personality disorder. He has continued to experience residual symptoms of schizophrenia during the review period despite being on a therapeutic dose of medication. His cognitive functioning on testing is in the “extremely low range” making a neurodevelopmental disorder a possible differential diagnosis that would further impact his risk. He requires significant supports and supervision. There have been no incidents of physical violence during the reporting period but he has continued to be intrusive towards his peers and exhibited inappropriate behaviours towards women. His participation in psychotherapeutic interventions have been limited due to his cognitive functioning. However, his work with his behavioural analyst during this review period has highlighted his ability to learn some skills required for risk mitigation. He has made progress over the past reporting year and will be working towards longer periods of indirectly supervised privileges with his acquired skills. He requires the substantial supports available to him at this time on a forensic unit.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The Board agrees on the evidence outlined above with the joint position of the parties, that Mr. Severin continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order with the privileges jointly recommended is that which is at this time necessary and appropriate.
The breadth of privileges included in his disposition will serve to manage Mr. Severin’s risk and also allow for his continued steps forward towards reintegration into the community. It is hoped that he will continue to be successful in working with his behavioural therapist to moderate his intrusivity and touching behaviours. It is also anticipated that with the ongoing trials of accompanied hospital and grounds privileges that he will soon move forward towards indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges. This disposition provides room for him to further move towards greater privileges with the ultimate goal of community reintegration.
The hospital has made efforts to obtain information about Mr. Severin’s childhood years to support a reapplication for DSO services and housing. It is hoped that Mr. Severin’s parents might be reached in the upcoming year to provide these essential details.
For all these reasons, the Board finds that the jointly proposed disposition is that which is currently necessary and appropriate and least onerous and restrictive. We make this disposition in consideration of the primary factor of protection of public safety and Mr. Severin’s mental condition, his reintegration into the community and his other needs.
DATED this 27^th^ day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Fromstein
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board