Ontario Review Board
Re: Evan Little
ORB File No: 7910
Hearing held on: Wednesday, October 15, 2025
Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. K. Hand
Dr. J. Cheston
Ms. C. Fromstein
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Evan Little
Counsel: Ms. L.M. Landry
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 26, 2025)
Introduction
On June 28, 2021, Evan Little was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on two charges of dangerous operation causing death, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code).
He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB” or “Board”) dated October 24, 2024, wherein he is discharged from Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”) on certain terms and conditions.
On October 15, 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. Mr. Little and his counsel, Ms. L.M. Landry attended the hearing. Mr. Andrew Prins, son of the deceased victims, and his spouse, Barbara, also attended the hearing. Mr. Prins read a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) in accordance with section 672.5(15.1) of the Criminal Code. A Hospital Report dated September 30, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
The issue to be determined is whether Mr. Little continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, as defined in section 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.
Initial Position 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 no change to the current Disposition.
Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the recommendation of the Hospital.
Ms. Landry, on behalf of Mr. Little, conceded significant risk. She agreed with the Hospital’s recommendation to maintain the current Disposition but with the removal of clause 1(b) regarding “abstaining from substance use”.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from an Agreed Statement of Facts as set out at pages 2-4 of the Hospital Report summarized as follows:
On September 19, 2017, Mr. Little was operating a Black Honda Civic westbound on Ravenshoe Rd., east of Woodbine Ave. in Georgina, Ontario. This area of Ravenshoe was a two- lane undivided rural road with farmland type properties on both sides. The roadway travelled in an East/West direction with a single hash marked yellow line dividing the lanes. The edge of the asphalt was marked with a white fog line. Both the North and South shoulders of the roadway were constructed of hard packed gravel/dirt and transitioned to a ditch area. The roadway was constructed of well-travelled asphalt. The weather was clear and dry.
Mr. Little operated the vehicle at a high rate of speed in excess of the posted limit. He attempted to pass westbound traffic by straddling the hash marked yellow line. He struck the side of an Eastbound international truck that was pulling a trailer van. The Honda’s driver’s side wheels became airborne, his Honda then collided head on with the victim’s Hyundai Accent, which caused a chain reaction collision that involved five other vehicles. These collisions caused two fatalities, multiple injuries, and a large debris field of roughly 160 metres. Seven vehicles sustained damage.The deaths of Neeltje and Pleun Prins were caused by massive trauma that was the result of the collision caused by Mr. Little’s dangerous operation of the motor vehicle.”
Personal Background/Psychiatric History
Mr. Little’s personal background and psychiatric history are extensively reviewed in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing and need not be repeated here.
Briefly, Mr. Little is a thirty-three-year-old man born in Peterborough, Ontario. He is married and has no children. At the time of the index offences, Mr. Little was residing with his parents in Peterborough.
At the age of fifteen years, Mr. Little was diagnosed with Wegener’s disease (Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis or GPA), an uncommon disorder that causes inflammation of blood vessels in the nose, sinuses, throat, lungs and kidneys. He underwent numerous surgeries for that condition.
Mr. Little attended Queen’s University for mechanical engineering and completed part of his final year. At age 24, he developed a depressed mood and worsening concentration in the context of the onset of severe and intractable headaches. In January 2015 an MRI revealed a pineal gland cyst with “evidence of remote hemorrhage.” In May 2016, he underwent neurosurgery in the United States to remove the cyst, against the advice of his doctors in Canada. The procedure was described as complex but was completed without apparent incident or complications. Mr. Little attempted to return to his studies but was unsuccessful. He obtained part-time employment at Shoppers Drug Mart for a few months before moving on to an engineering related job in Peterborough in the spring/summer of 2017.
Following the surgery, Mr. Little experienced visual hallucinations. His family and friends noticed gradual changes in his personality. He became more socially isolated, his hygiene deteriorated and there were disruptions in his sleep. Mr. Little became more irritable and agitated. He was described as increasingly confused, unable to engage in routine conversations, and staring for prolonged periods. These behaviours became more pronounced in the months leading up to the index offences.
Following the index offences, Mr. Little was treated in the trauma unit where he underwent numerous surgeries for his injuries. His mental status initially appeared unremarkable; however, by October 12, 2017, he began evidencing psychotic symptoms manifested as auditory hallucinations, delusions of references from magazines and the television, thought insertion, paranoia, religious preoccupation, bizarre behaviours, and thought form disorganization. There were also several incidents of seemingly unprovoked physical aggression. Imaging of his head did not suggest that the motor vehicle collision contributed to any further obvious or acute trauma to this brain.
Mr. Little has described moderate alcohol consumption and weekly cannabis use. He also began micro-dosing magic mushrooms to address his depressed mood. There were also concerns that he was taking more than his prescribed amount of his prescription stimulant.
Mr. Little is supported through his insurance settlement that provides him with a monthly income replacement. He also receives extended benefits covering his medications and dental care. He remains capable of making treatment decisions and at the time of the hearing was subject to a Conditional Discharge Disposition and living in the community.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Little’s diagnoses include psychotic disorder due to another medical condition (with delusions), unspecified major neurocognitive disorder, substance use disorders (cannabis, alcohol, stimulants and hallucinogens – in remission) and personality change due to another medical condition.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. D. Pallandi to supplement the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
Mr. Little’s remained mentally stable during the reporting year with no signs of psychotic symptoms. He has remained compliant with his medication regimen. He has fair insight into his need for medication on a lifelong basis and has indicated he feels better on the medication.
In December 2024, Mr. Little travelled to the Philippines to be married and returned in January 2025. He moved from a single bedroom subsidized apartment to a one-bedroom unit located in a triplex home in Peterborough where he presently lives with his spouse.
Mr. Little has neurological vulnerability. During the reporting year, he underwent two rounds of infusion with rituximab to address his GPA, which he tolerated reasonably well. His supervision and support were increased during this time to ensure there were no mental health changes, which ended in July 2025.
Mr. Little has maintained a good relationship with his treatment team. He has been fully cooperative and on time with all his scheduled appointments. Over the reporting year, the frequency of his appointments has been slowly reduced, and he is presently seen once per week, in person, at his residence.
Mr. Little spends time with his spouse and family and has expressed an interest in pursuing a certification in Computer Aided Design (CAD) and finding employment in that field. He has secured a patent in Germany for a robotic joint and started a National Patent phase entry into the United States. His goal is to license his patent to at least one company by the end of 2025.
Mr. Little tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol as a result of two urine drug screens taken on April 3 and April 22, 2025. He advised the treatment team that while his cousin was visiting on weekends, he used cannabinoids. When asked, Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that it could be the result of a single use but may also be consistent with two separate uses. The doctor highlighted that there was no change in Mr. Little’s mental state at that time.
When asked, Dr. Pallandi advised that the removal of the substance prohibition clause in the Disposition is ill- advised. He stated that such a removal was premature and at this time, he has concerns with moving forward in that direction. The doctor reiterated that Mr. Little has a substance use disorder and had numerous positive screens for cannabis in 2021, which required a protracted two-month hospital admission to detoxify him. Dr. Pallandi highlighted that Mr. Little has neurological vulnerability and emphasized that he is very careful about substance use in Mr. Little’s case. He elaborated that a person having a neurological disorder has an enhanced fragility of the state of the brain, so you don’t want to introduce substances that can destabilize and have a negative effect. Dr. Pallandi agreed that an elevation of risk depended on Mr. Little’s pattern of use of such substances.
The Hospital Report states at page 21, that “Mr. Little has not expressed any interest in having the substance prohibition removed from his Disposition.” Dr. Pallandi advised that up until the hearing, he was not aware Mr. Little would be seeking a removal of the abstention clause from the Disposition. He stated that he will be exploring why Mr. Little wants the substance prohibition removed with a full discussion about pattern of use before considering this step. When asked, the doctor stated that in his experience, someone wanting a prohibition removed was to return to substance use as opposed to testing his commitment to abstinence.
Mr. Little enjoys the full support of his parents and his spouse. In the coming year, the treatment team is looking towards continued stability and treatment compliance. Dr. Pallandi advised that Mr. Little was going in the right direction, but more time was needed.
Overall, Mr. Little’s risk for violence is estimated to be in a ‘low’ range and well-managed while on a Conditional Discharge Disposition. Dr. Pallandi adopted the risk assessment on page 22 of the Hospital Report which states:
“Our risk assessment continues to be influenced by the gravity and significance of the index offense and the residual degree of uncertainty about Mr. Little's true insight into his offenses, his own mental health difficulties and the association between the two”
Mr. Prins, son of the deceased, read in a Victim Impact Statement at the hearing, describing the effect the index offence has had on the family.
No further evidence was presented at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the Hospital, maintained her initial position that Mr. Little remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition was the necessary and appropriate Disposition without any change. She submitted that removing the abstinence clause was not clinically advisable at this time due to the fragility of the underlying diagnoses. She further submitted that the plan for the upcoming year is to continue to monitor his physical health to see if it impacts on his mental health.
Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, maintained her initial position and supported the continuation of the Conditional Discharge Disposition on the same terms and conditions. She underlined the impact that the index offence has had on the family of the deceased victims. Ms. MacDonald submitted that Mr. Little has a long history of substance use in and around the time of the index offences and that his use of cannabinoids in April 2025, goes directly to his insight and risk.
Ms. Landry, on behalf of Mr. Little, maintained her initial position. She submitted that Mr. Little has been well managed and stable this past year and fully compliant with his medication regimen. He has insight into the role his medication plays in his life and has expressed this fact to his treatment team on more than one occasion. Ms. Landry submitted that there is currently no ability to test Mr. Little’s commitment to future abstinence. She submitted that her client wants an opportunity to demonstrate to the Board that he is internally motivated to abstain from substances. She left it in the Board’s hands.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board finds that Mr. Little continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. Notwithstanding the joint position on significant threat by the parties, we make this finding based on the evidence of Dr. Pallandi, and that contained in the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
Mr. Little’s index offences involve a violent multi vehicle collision causing the death of two unsuspecting elderly persons driving on the highway. The profound impact the index offences have had on family members of the deceased was thoughtfully and thoroughly articulated in a Victim Impact Statement read out by Mr. Andrew Prins, son of the deceased at the hearing.
Mr. Little’s clinical profile is quite complex. His psychotic symptoms have spawned from neurological surgery that took place in 2015. He has multiple diagnoses including psychotic disorder due to another medical condition (with delusions), unspecified major neurocognitive disorder, substance use disorders (cannabis, alcohol, stimulants and hallucinogens – in remission), and personality change due to another medical condition. Prior to the index offence, Mr. Little had several psychiatric admissions as a result of treatment nonadherence, substance use, psychotic symptoms, and erratic behaviour.
He remains a significant risk to the safety of the public. As stated in the Hospital Report at page 19:
“With that in mind, the most likely reoffence scenario would be if Mr. Little were living unsupervised in the community, not fully utilizing his professional supports, discontinued or was not fully adherent with his medication, used substances, or experienced stressors associated with his mental illness or personal goals. Were Mr. Little to experience a relapse, likely secondary to substance use, stress, or treatment noncompliance, similar to the index offense he would likely experience a resurgence of psychotic symptoms resulting in unpredictable, erratic behavior with potential for verbal or physical aggression resulting in psychological or physical harm toward others”
To his credit, Mr. Little remained mentally stable, has been compliant with his medication regimen, developed fair insight, and there have been no reported incidents of violence while living in the community. He enjoys a supportive relationship with his parents and spouse and is motivated to pursue his education and obtain employment in that field.
This Board considered Mr. Little’s request to remove the prohibition against substance use from his Disposition. We do not agree. Mr. Little has a complex diagnosis leading to a fragile mental state. He has a history of substance use which in the past has contributed to hospital admissions both prior to and subsequent to the index offences. We accept Dr. Pallandi’s evidence that at this time it is ill-advised and pre-mature to remove such a prohibition. Although there was no change in his mental state when Mr. Little used cannabinoids in April 2025, this was perhaps only a single use or at most two. The doctor emphasized that such substances could have a negative effect on Mr. Little’s mental state, depending on pattern of use (frequency and quantity), which could elevate his risk in the community. This Board also notes that according to Dr. Pallandi, Mr. Little’s request to remove such a prohibition clause was first brought up at the hearing without any previous discussion with him. As such, it is important that the Hospital move cautiously and thoroughly delve into the reasons Mr. Little wants this clause removed together with any stated intentions. In her final submissions, Ms. Landry submitted that Mr. Little wishes to remove the abstention clause to prove his abstinence to the Board. There was no evidence of this at the hearing.
For the reasons set out above, we came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Little remains a significant threat to the safety of public and that the most appropriate and necessary Disposition was the continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition on the same terms and conditions.
In reaching our decision, the Board has considered the safety of the public, Mr. Little’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 26^th^ day of November 2025 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Alternate Chairperson
____________________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board