Re: Philip Shank, 2025 CanLII 122727

Ontario Review Board

Re: Philip Shank

ORB File No: 8802

Hearing held on: Monday, October 20, 2025

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Silver

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. M. Green Ms. J. Fuller Ms. K. Brisson

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Philip Shank Counsel: Ms. K. Scullion

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Adiele

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Masse

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated November 25, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On May 30, 2025, Mr. Shank was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of a charge of criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. Following the NCR finding, the Court directed Mr. Shank to appear before the Ontario Review Board (ORB) for the Board to render a Disposition. On October 20^th, 2025, the Board convened at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (BMHC) to conduct an initial hearing and to determine the appropriate disposition. Mr. Shank appeared in person and was assisted by counsel, Ms. Karen Scullion.

Evidence at the Hearing

3. In addition to the oral testimony of the hospital psychiatrist, Dr. Anthony Adiele, the Board received and entered the following documents into evidence:

4. Copies of the Criminal Information and Record of Criminal Court Appearances

5. Crown Brief Cover and the Crown Brief Synopsis.

6. Copy of the CPIC – Criminal Record

7. Transcripts of the Reason for Judgment from the Ontario Court of Justice proceedings held on February 12^th, 2025.

8. Forensic Psychiatry Assessment regarding criminal responsibility, authored by Dr F. Wood, dated August 21, 2024, and updated forensic psychiatry assessment regarding criminal responsibility, dated May 20^th, 2025.

9. Hospital report dated September 29^th, 2025, authored by Dr. Anthony Adiele and Dr. Johnathan Gray.

10. The issues to be considered by the Board are whether Mr. Shank represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition.

Initial Position of the Parties

5. Dr. Adiele, on behalf of the hospital, and counsel appearing for the Attorney-General, submitted that Mr. Shank represents a significant threat to public safety. They jointly recommended that a detention order be issued to manage this risk and that Mr. Shank remain detained at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (BMHC).

6. Ms. Masse, on behalf of the Attorney-General, indicated that she agreed with the hospital’s proposed conditions for the detention order. She noted she might have some questions concerning whether a community living clause should be included. She also recommended that the order include no-contact, no-communication, and radius-restriction clauses prohibiting Mr. Shank from contacting the victims of the index offences.

7. Ms. Scullion, counsel for Mr. Shank, advised the panel that her client was seeking an Absolute Discharge. Mr. Shank expressed that he did not wish to remain in the hospital and did not believe that he suffered from any mental health issues.

8. Upon completion of the hearing and for the reasons detailed below, the Board found that Mr. Shank presents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further determined that a detention order was the most appropriate disposition.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

9. Mr. Shanks’s diagnoses are as follows:

Main Diagnosis

• Delusional Disorder -persecutory type

Contributory Diagnoses

• Deferred

Contributory Personality Features

• Deferred

Contributory Psychosocial Stressors

• Current legal situation
• Limited financial and social supports
• Marginal living arrangements

Index Offence and Surrounding Circumstances:

10. The relevant circumstances are documented in the police and hospital reports, as well as in court transcripts. According to the Brief Synopsis, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) were dispatched on numerous occasions over a two-year period to respond to neighbour disputes involving Mr. Shank.

11. In addition to the charge of criminal harassment on which Mr. Shank was found not criminally responsible (NCR), several other charges arose from incidents occurring between October 19,2022, and April 27, 2023, involving various neighbours.

12. Summary of Outcomes:

• Acquitted of one count of Criminal Harassment and one count of Defamatory Libel
• Found guilty of one count of committing an Indecent Act
• Found guilty of two counts of Failure to Appear
• Found guilty of one count of Breach of a Release Order contrary to the Criminal Code

13. The following describes the surrounding circumstances and outcomes of Mr. Shank’s various charges:

Criminal Harassment – s. 264(2)

Date Range: October 19^th, 2022 to April 27^th, 2023

Disposition: Found NCR.

The complainant, Ms. K.L., lived in the neighborhood with her husband. During the summer of 2022, while on maternity leave, Ms. K.L. frequently walked or cycled along a nature trail west of her home. Although fearful of Mr. Shank, who often watched her and yelled or screamed at her, she continued these walks, informing her husband of her planned routes as a precaution. She reportedly carried a small knife in the baby’s stroller for self-defence.

On one occasion during the charging period, while walking her baby, Ms. K.L. noticed Mr. Shank following her along the rural trail, approximately 30 to 50 meters behind. He continued following her for about five to eight minutes before suddenly emerging from the bushes, frightening her. Ms. K.L. ran home with her stroller and immediately contacted the police.

Indecent Act in a public place – s. 173(1)(a)

Date: August 17, 2023

Disposition: Guilty

On this date, Mr. L.(1) was outside his property with his young son when Mr. Shank lowered his pants, exposed his buttocks, and walked toward Mr. L.(1) while masturbating and yelling. The act was intended to shock, intimidate, and harass the complainant.

Criminal Harassment and Defamatory Libel:

Date: April 27^th, 2023

Disposition: Acquitted

Mr. Shank was acquitted of charges of criminal harassment and defamatory libel in relation to Mr. D.L., who owned a property containing two rental units, a detached garage, and a workshop just east of Mr. Shank’s residence.

On several occasions, Mr. Shank allegedly confronted Mr. D.L., yelling aggressively and demanding that he leave the area. The complainant reported feeling fearful for his safety and that of his tenants. It was further alleged that, on April 27^th, 2023, Mr. Shank posted a sign on his property accusing the complainant of being a “backstabbing, dirty … drug dealer” and displaying his home address. Mr. D.L. reported concerns for his personal safety and that of his tenants.

However, according to the Reasons for Judgment, the photograph of the sign was of poor quality and did not clearly show the alleged defamatory content. The Court concluded that the evidence did not meet the threshold for either defamation or criminal harassment.

Failure to Appear and Breach of Release Order

Dates of Failure to Appear: July 18 and August 24, 2023.

Dates of Breach: September 12^th, 2024

Disposition: Guilty

Mr. Shank failed to appear in court on two occasions as required. Regarding the breach of conditions, he had been released on a court order prohibiting him from being within 500 meters of any residence occupied by the complainant.

On September 12^th, 2024, Mr. Shank returned to his former property, which was located within the prohibited radius of the complainant’s residence, thereby violating the terms of his release order.

Personal Background (According to the Hospital Report)

14. Mr. Shank is a 51-year-old male. Very little is known about his personal history as he remains notably guarded and secretive. He lived with his biological parents until age 16 and has been separated from his wife or partner for approximately 15 years.

15. Mr. Shank appeared to function relatively well until he lost his employment around 2011, at approximately age 37. He was married but separated from his spouse around 2012.

16. The hospital was unable to obtain collateral information, as Mr. Shank refused consent to contact relatives or disclose any details about his developmental history.

17. A review of his previous admission to the Royal’s Forensic Assessment Unit noted that one of his brothers visited him during that stay and suggested he may have other siblings. He has no known friends or current family contacts. No information is available regarding his early life or education.

18. Prior to incarceration, Mr. Shank lived alone in a house described as “off the grid” for about two years. The property is reportedly owned by his ex-wife. Since 2012, he appears to have led a marginalized lifestyle, remained unemployed, and not sought financial assistance. He reportedly supported himself solely through GST cheques.

19. In 2012, Mr. Shank underwent an assessment to determine possible not criminally responsible status, although the specific offence details were not provided. During this assessment, he was described as “guarded and secretive”, though not overtly psychotic. It was suggested that he likely suffered from a paranoid psychosis; however, due to his refusal to discuss his offences or mental state at the time, no conclusion could be reached regarding his criminal responsibility.

20. Since that time, it appears that Mr. Shank continued living a marginal lifestyle without employment or financial support. He eventually lost access to electricity and hydro services at his home and reportedly cut the power lines himself, describing the act as part of an “art project”. This behaviour was viewed as indicative of increasing paranoia.

21. Mr. Shank informed Dr. Wood, who had conducted the NCR assessments, that he believed unknown individuals were entering his home and stealing or moving his belongings while he was away. He reported attempting to catch them by sprinkling flour on the floor, but these efforts were unsuccessful. He stated that he only felt safe after nailing plywood over his back door whenever he left, believing this would deter intruders.

22. According to Dr. Wood, Mr. Shank’s condition has likely continued to deteriorate functionally since 2012.

Previous Psychiatric History

23. Mr. Shank underwent a forensic psychiatric assessment in 2012 for a possible Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) finding, although details of the associated offence are unclear. During that assessment, he was described as extremely guarded and secretive, which significantly limited the evaluation. Although he did not exhibit overt psychotic features at the time, his refusal to discuss his offences or mental state prevented any formal opinion from being rendered regarding his criminal responsibility.

24. Mr. Shank was reassessed on August 21, 2024, concerning his criminal responsibility for the index offences. Dr. Wood opined that the veracity of the alleged offences should first be determined by the Court before a definitive opinion could be formed. As noted above, Mr. Shank was later acquitted of two of the initial charges, including one count of Criminal Harassment and one count of Defamatory Libel. As documented in the hospital report, Dr. Wood opined that Mr. Shank had likely been experiencing long-standing persecutory delusions, contributing to significant functional decline and progressive social withdrawal.

25. Mr. Shank expressed persistent persecutory beliefs that others were entering his home during his absence. He reported setting traps to confirm these intrusions and appeared to believe that his neighbours were responsible. The Court’s Reasons for Judgment specifically noted that the neighbours had not acted provocatively nor provided any rational basis for such beliefs.

Substance Use History

26. Mr. Shank has no significant substance abuse history documented.

Previous Criminal Court Involvement

27. A review of Mr. Shank’s criminal records indicates convictions spanning from 2007 to 2012 including multiple convictions: one count of assault, two counts of mischief, one count of uttering threats, one count of forcible confinement, one count of flight from a police officer, one count of dangerous operation of motor vehicle, one count of impaired driving, one count of possession of property obtained by crime, and several counts of failing to comply with conditions of an undertaking or a recognizance.

28. His longest custodial sentence was 30 days, which he served on four separate occasions.

29. Mr. Shank was admitted to the Brockville Forensic Treatment Unit (FTU) on August 7^th, 2025, following his transfer from the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. Upon arrival, he was described as cooperative, yet guarded, anxious, and preoccupied with perceived injustices about his ongoing legal proceedings.

30. Mr. Shank discussed the allegations against him in a fragmented and suspicious manner. His responses suggested that his thought processes remain dominated by longstanding and paranoid themes that had characterized his presentation for over a decade. Mr. Shank expressed frustration about his detention, stating that he had “served enough time” and should be released. He repeatedly asserted that his charges were fabricated. Initially, he was calm and was transferred to an open, quieter room.

31. By August 13, 2025, clear evidence of paranoid beliefs began to emerge, marking a noticeable change in his presentation. He approached the nursing station carrying a pair of underwear, claiming that someone had placed dirty underwear among his belongings. He appeared angry, maintained intense eye contact, and tore the underwear apart in front of staff while demanding that security footage be reviewed to identify the “perpetrator”. Subsequently, he began carrying all his personal belongings wrapped in bed sheets wherever he went.

32. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Shank placed a handwritten note on his door reading “Stay the F**** out”. When staff removed the note in accordance with unit policy, he reacted with verbal aggression and threatening behaviour, including swearing, pointing fingers, and questioning staff members’ credentials.

33. By August 18, his paranoid preoccupations had become pervasive. He requested that his door remain locked, citing fears of intrusion. By August 21, his agitation had escalated further. He spoke rapidly and loudly, appeared visibly tense, and claimed that the water supply was “contaminated” and “no good”. He voiced persistent concerns about being surveilled and expressed a range of conspiracy theories. During this period, he made threatening statements towards staff, some of which included racist, sexualized, and violent content.

34. Of particular concern, Mr. Shank engaged in self-injurious behaviour, including repeatedly banging his forehead against a window and punching walls. Given the level of agitation and potential for harm, the clinical team determined that he posed a significant risk to himself and others. Consequently, he was placed in seclusion and administered intramuscular medication for behavioural control. He remained in seclusion from August 21 to August 27, 2025. During this time, he continued to exhibit profound mistrust of staff, covering the security camera and positioning his mattress against the door to block perceived intrusions.

35. Following his release from seclusion, Mr. Shank developed a fixed behavioural pattern that persisted throughout September. He largely isolated himself in his room, emerging only for meals. He was observed sleeping on the floor with one leg positioned against the door, apparently to detect any attempted entry. His interactions with staff were limited to requests for basic needs and lacked any meaningful therapeutic engagement.

36. Throughout his admission, Mr. Shank refused all forms of treatment. He consistently declined scheduled medications, refused to provide urine or blood samples, and avoided extended interviews with his attending psychiatrist or other members of the multidisciplinary team. He also declined consent for collateral contact with relatives and refused participation in all therapeutic programming. He also rejected all social work interventions, including offers of assistance with taxes, financial matters, or discharge planning.

Current Violent Assessment Risk

37. Dr. Adiele recently completed a comprehensive assessment of Mr. Shank using several structured professional judgment and actuarial tools, including the HCR-20-v3 (Historical, Clinical and Risk Management factors), the Risk Management Scale (R1-R6), and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG).

38. Based on these assessments, along with a detailed review of Mr. Shank’s historical, behavioural, and clinical information, Dr. Adiele and the clinical team concluded that Mr. Shank presents a significant threat to public safety. According to the hospital report, Mr. Shank currently presents with a high risk of violence, primarily driven by the following factors:

• A complete lack of insight into his mental illness and a refusal to engage in treatment
• The absence of protective factors, including stable housing, employment, social support, or a therapeutic alliance
• A pattern of behavioural escalation response to perceived threats or frustration; and
• A history of conditional release violations.

39. During the current admission, Mr. Shank’s presentation suggests that his level of risk has not diminished and may, in fact, be static or increasing. Dr. Adiele observed that a paranoid belief system dominating Mr. Shank’s life in the community had persisted despite this hospitalization. In the hospital report, Mr. Shank is described as a man “trapped in a paranoid worldview”, a state that prevents him from engaging meaningfully in treatment or establishing therapeutic relationships.

40. In Dr. Adiele’s professional opinion, a detention order remains necessary to ensure that Mr. Shank continues to receive psychiatric treatment, rehabilitation, and gradual reintegration into the community.

41. Such reintegration should only occur within a structured and supervised framework, including a community-living clause, given his ongoing risk factors and lack of insight into his mental illness.

Evidence at the Hearing:

42. The Board also received direct testimony from the current attending physician, Dr. Adiele, a staff member with the Forensic Treatment Unit of the BMHC. In summary, Dr. Adiele provided the following evidence:

43. Mr. Shank remains acutely unwell and continues to reside on the most restrictive ward within the hospital. He presents with significant persecutory and paranoid delusions, which have now extended to include staff members, including Dr. Adiele himself. Mr. Shank does not recognize Dr. Adiele as his physician and has refused to engage with him meaningfully since admission, including as recently as the morning before the hearing, when Dr. Adiele again attempted to meet with him.

44. On October 16, 2025, Dr. Adiele found that Mr. Shank was incapable of consenting to his treatment. Mr. Shank refused to meet with the Rights Advisor and has not appealed the finding of incapacity.

45. Despite repeated attempts, Dr. Adiele has been unable to identify a substitute decision-maker (SDM) because Mr. Shank will not provide any information about family members or other potential SDMs. Accordingly, Dr. Adiele intends to seek consent from the Public Guardian and Trustee (PG&T) to initiate a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, Paliperidone 150 mg. He expressed optimism that once medication is initiated, Mr. Shank may experience a reduction of psychotic symptoms and gradual stabilization.

46. In response to questions from the parties and panel members, Dr. Adiele confirmed his opinion that a detention order remains necessary to manage Mr. Shank’s risk. On any less restrictive disposition, it is likely that Mr. Shank would attempt to return to his previous marginal residence, which lacks electricity and running water, and would be at high risk of re-engaging in the same persecutory and threatening behaviour that gave rise to the index offence.

47. Dr. Adiele confirmed that, should Mr. Shank show improvement following the introduction of medication, the treatment team intends to grant privileges progressively in accordance with the hospital’s established privilege system.

48. Several questions were raised about the feasibility of including a community-living clause in the Disposition. Dr. Adiele acknowledged that such a clause would be ambitious at this stage, but he did not wish to foreclose the possibility should Mr. Shank begin treatment and respond well. He noted that Mr. Shank had previously worked successfully as a skilled carpenter and retains rehabilitative potential. Finally, he confirmed his plan to refer Mr. Shank for psychotherapy, emphasizing that such intervention would be an essential complement to pharmacological treatment and a vital component of Mr. Shank’s long-term recovery plan.

Final Submissions of the Parties

49. Both the hospital and the Crown submitted that Mr. Shank continues to present a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order remains necessary to manage his risk. On behalf of the Attorney-General, Ms. Masse questioned whether community living within the next year would be realistic, but did not take a firm position on whether such a clause should be included in the Disposition. Ms. Masse reiterated her request for the inclusion of a non-communication clause prohibiting contact with the victims of the index offences, as well as a radius restriction.

50. On behalf of Mr. Shank, Ms. Karen Scullion submitted that her client seeks an absolute discharge. Mr. Shank does not wish to remain in the hospital and does not believe that he suffers from any mental health disorder.

51. Ms. Scullion advised the panel that she has represented Mr. Scullion in relation to the index offences and subsequent NCR proceedings. She described Mr. Shank as an intelligent individual who enjoys reading and characterized him as a good person. She further noted that Mr. Shank’s parents attended court proceedings in support of him and remain committed to his well-being and treatment. Finally, Ms. Scullion indicated that she has discussed the possibility of Mr. Shank engaging in psychotherapy, and those discussions remain ongoing.

Board Disposition

52. After carefully considering the evidence and the submissions, including the clinical assessments and testimony of Dr. Adiele and the treatment team, the Board finds that Mr. Shank continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as a result of his mental disorder.

53. Mr. Shank suffers from an untreated mental disorder and currently presents with a high risk of violence, primarily driven by an active delusional disorder. In addition to the NCR finding on the index offence, Mr. Shank has recently been convicted of committing an indecent act contrary to section 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, as well as failure to appear and breach of release conditions.

54. He demonstrates a complete lack of insight into his mental illness and has refused to engage in any treatment during his admission. Within the hospital setting, his paranoid beliefs have extended to staff members and his treating psychiatrist, significantly impairing his ability to participate in care or establish a therapeutic alliance.

55. The absence of protective factors further heightens his risk. Mr. Shank lacks stable housing, employment, social supports, and any engagement in treatment. These deficits, combined with his untreated psychosis and rigid persecutory beliefs, leave him highly vulnerable to behavioural escalation in the absence of strict supervision and oversight.

56. The panel unanimously finds that a detention order is required to manage Mr. Shank’s risk. Accordingly, and pursuant to section 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the Board orders that Mr. Shank remain detained in hospital on the terms and conditions recommended in the hospital report.

57. In addition, as recommended by Crown counsel, there shall be a condition prohibiting any communication, direct or indirect, with the three victims, and a prohibition from attending within 200 metres of any residence, school, place of employment, or other location known to be occupied by the three named complainants.

58. Although Crown counsel expressed doubt that community living would be achievable within the next reporting period, the Board does not wish to foreclose that possibility, although we agreed that such a goal may be ambitious. Should Mr. Shank commence treatment and demonstrate sustained improvement, the hospital may consider it appropriate to grant this privilege. Accordingly, a community-living clause, permitting residence in approved accommodation, will be included in the Disposition.

59. For these reasons and having regard to the paramount need to protect public safety, while balancing the patient’s mental condition, reintegration, and other needs, the Board orders a detention order. The specific terms and conditions are set out in the Disposition.

DATED this 25^th day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. L. Silver

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board