Ontario Review Board
Re: Olukayode A. Shodunke
ORB File No: 8366
Hearing held on: Thursday, October 16, 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: Olukayode A. Shodunke Counsel: Mr. F. Bernhardt
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 27, 2025)
Introduction:
On August 11, 2023, Olukayode Shodunke was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault (x5) and assault causing bodily harm, contrary the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a Disposition dated October 30, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “hospital”) with privileges up to and including community living in accommodation approved by the person in charge. The Disposition also includes a seven-day travel pass that was added to his Disposition last year and maintains a no-contact provision with the four victims of the index offence. Mr. Shodunke is required to report to the hospital not less than every two weeks.
On October 16, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at Ontario Shores to conduct Mr. Shodunke’s annual review pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Shodunke was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Bernhardt.
The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Shodunke continues to meet the threshold test of a significant threat to safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition bearing in mind the factors set out in 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.
Mr. Dow, counsel for the hospital, indicated the hospital takes the position that Mr. Shodunke continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his current disposition should be continued.
Ms. MacDonald, counsel for the Crown, supported the hospital position.
Mr. Bernhardt, counsel for Mr. Shodunke, indicated that he had not received firm instructions from his client who is otherwise content with the current disposition. He asked, nonetheless that the Board consider the imposition of a conditional discharge. He noted that his client is content to continue to reside in this present residence and he is not contesting the issue of significant threat.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts included in the Hospital Report was summarized at last year’s hearing as follows:
“Mr. Shodunke and all of the victims resided in a building owned and operated by Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”). There had been no prior issues between them. On July 11, 2022 victim #1 walked by Mr. Shodunke with his cane near the entrance of the building. Mr. Shodunke approached victim #1 from behind and without provocation punched him on the left side of the face causing him to fall to the ground. Victim #2 was nearby and Mr. Shodunke approached him and attempted to punch him. Victim #2 was able to put his arms up to stop the blow. Victim #3 approached Mr. Shodunke in an attempt to intervene. Mr. Shodunke used his right foot to forcibly kick victim #3 in the chest area. The force of the kick caused victim #3 to fall backwards and hit his head on a cement retaining wall. Victim #3 was knocked unconscious. Victim #2 then tried to intervene. Mr. Shodunke kicked victim #2 twice with his right foot. Mr. Shodunke then approached victim #4 and swung at him with his fists, striking him in his left forearm. Mr. Shodunke left the area briefly but soon returned yelling and gesticulating. He approached victim #1 again and kicked him in the midsection causing him to fall to the ground again.
Victim #1 had swelling to the left side of his face and a sore chest. Victim #2 had a small abrasion to his left forearm. Victim #3 had a laceration to the back of his head requiring seven staples to close. Victim #4 had no visible injuries although he had soreness in his forearm.
The Hospital Report included Mr. Shodunke’s self report of the index offences and stated that he had stopped taking his antipsychotic medication in November or December of 2021 because it had been affecting his performance at work (he worked as a recycler at Value Village). He denied experiencing any psychotic symptoms in the month prior to the index offences and denied any substance use. With respect to the day of the index offences, he stated that he had been assaulted and rendered unconscious by victim #4 and another man at the back of the building. When he regained consciousness he was confused and went to the front of the building. He felt that people were “gathering” and coming towards him which put him in a “tight situation, a tight corner.” Mr. Shodunke could not recall the specifics of the assaults on the four victims but recalled “trying to fend them away from me.”
Background
Mr. Shodunke’s personal background and history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report, Exhibit 1, so will not be repeated. Briefly summarized, Mr. Shodunke is now 32 years of age. He was born in Nigeria and immigrated to Canada in May 2014. He had completed three years of university in electrical engineering in Nigeria but these credits were not transferable upon arrival in Canada. He was required to complete grade 12 credits which was reported to be a major stressor for him. Mr. Shodunke lived with his family until 2015 at which time symptoms of his mental illness surfaced. He resided thereafter in shelters and eventually at an apartment with TCHC.
Mr. Shodunke attended George Brown College in 2017 but was unable to focus and did not complete the program. He did, however, thereafter complete a one-year program in electrical techniques and held employment.
Mr. Shodunke has no previous criminal involvement prior to the index offence. He does not have any history of substance use.
Following the onset of symptoms, Mr. Shodunke had a number of hospital emergency attendances between the years 2015 to 2022. He is reported to have been noncompliant with medications but became stable on long-acting injectable medications in 2021. He then stopped taking his medication in 2022, left his employment and became more guarded and suspicious. Mr. Shodunke has been found to be incapable with respect to consent to medication and his sister is his substitute decision maker.
In 2024, in the context of ongoing residual symptoms of psychosis, consent was obtained from his SDM to switch his long-acting psychotropic medication to clozapine. However, despite initially agreeing to take this oral medication, he subsequently refused. He was switched to zuclopenthixol and responded well. His psychosis attenuated but is not fully remitted.
The Hospital Report sets out that Mr. Shodunke in the last year has not engaged in any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour. He was referred to as ‘a model patient’ while in hospital and was discharged to the community in December 2024. He adjusted well to his independent unit with Toronto Community Housing. Mr. Shodunke received support from the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS) at least once every week plus additional support from the Forensic Transitional Case Management (FCTM) worker. He has been compliant and punctual for all appointments.
In December 2024, Mr. Shodunke advised his FOS clinician that he had not taken his oral medication for two days because he was “smelling death”. Following the clinician’s advice, he resumed the medication and reported that the issue was resolved. Serum testing subsequently has confirmed that his medication level is within the therapeutic range.
Mr. Shodunke applied to university and was accepted into the Computer Science Program at Ontario Tech University which commenced in September 2025. He has reported to his treatment team that he has experienced difficulty managing his coursework with the additional strain of his two-hour commute in each direction from his home to the university. He sought additional academic support from a professor and is awaiting completion of the school’s accommodation evaluation to access further supports.
Mr. Shodunke remains in close contact with family: parents and sisters and sees them regularly. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Shodunke’s symptoms appear to be well managed under his current treatment plan. While he has shown compliance with his medications, he continued to exhibit limited insight into his mental illness and the necessity for ongoing treatment. He has voiced ambivalence about the continued need for medication and whether he will maintain adherence following his receipt of an absolute discharge. He has a documented history of medication noncompliance which has previously led to clinical deterioration and episodes of aggression. A concern set out in the Hospital Report is that, given his limited insight into his psychotic illness and the need for treatment, it is a concern that if he perceives his medication regimen is interfering with his academic performance, he may again choose to discontinue treatment.
Dr. Bhullar, Mr. Shodunke’s most responsible psychiatrist since December 2024, gave evidence. She congratulated Mr. Shodunke on the positive year that he has had. He has received support during this time from his clinician and his case manager in the community. In her most recent conversation with Mr. Shodunke, he expressed that the full-time load of courses has been difficult for him. With a two-hour commute in each direction, his eight hours of classes and his homework, his sleep has been impacted to the point where he has been getting only five hours of sleep.
Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Shodunke remains a significant threat to the safety of the public based on the fact that he has no insight into the index offence or his mental health disorder; he does not believe he has a psychotic illness or that he needs medication. He continues to assert the index offence was a misunderstanding in which he was defending himself. Mr. Shodunke has a history of violence at times when his mental health decompensates and has in the past required numerous incidents of police escorting him to hospital and him being admitted involuntarily on Mental Health Act Form 1’s. In the past, Mr. Shodunke had the support of an ACT team and was placed on a Community Treatment Order (CTO) but despite those supports, he still decompensated and stopped taking his medication, all of which led in part to the commission of the index offence. Mr. Shodunke’s psychotic illness is such that he is very prone to stress. His illness is brittle in that respect. This significantly impacts his risk of violence and supports the position that he meets the threshold of significant threat.
Given the stress that he is currently facing, a detention order is the necessary and appropriate disposition and that which is the least onerous and least restrictive. Dr. Bhullar spoke with Mr. Shodunke when he was applying to school about how he would manage the stress. He has said previously that he might consider part-time school but in their October 6th 2025 meeting, he indicated that he wants to be able to push beyond his boundaries. They discussed the taxing commute and it was suggested he might want to consider taking part-time classes. In Dr. Bhullar’s opinion, Mr. Shodunke lacks the insight to appreciate what this amount of stress might mean for him and he said that he simply wants to let things continue as they are at this time. She noted that before the index offence he had been working but felt that his medications were slowing his mind. He left his job at that time because it was too stressful. He became symptomatic and thereafter became involved in the index offence.
Dr. Bhullar testified that it is necessary that the hospital be in a position to approve Mr. Shodunke’s housing and for this reason a detention order is necessary. The hospital needs to ensure that if he chooses to move somewhere closer to his school, that it would be to housing that is appropriate for him. The necessity of being able to approve his housing is to ensure that if he chooses to move that is an appropriate living space that meets his needs. If Mr. Shodunke chose to share a residence with other students, she is uncertain at this time whether that would be appropriate for him when dealing with issues of stress. He has said that he might consider moving closer to the university but he really enjoys where he lives and the area. They had some discussion of, rather than moving, his being able to drive to school, but he neither has a licence nor the financial means to buy a car.
Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Shodunke requires close oversight regarding reporting. She testified that the Mental Health Act would not be adequate to address the risk for the reasons that Mr. Shodunke is very guarded and has no insight into his mental illness so if he deteriorated, his risk would increase to too high a level before he would meet the threshold for a Mental Health Act admission.
The plan for the upcoming year is to help Mr. Shodunke navigate the stressors inherent in his schedule and education. If he wished to relocate to be closer to the university, the treatment team would help him with that. They want to ensure his mental state remains well with medication adherence and that he has a successful year moving forward. Dr. Bhullar confirmed that Mr. Shodunke has done well in the past year with no incidents of aggression or concerns. He is residing in subsidized housing in Toronto and he indicates he likes where he lives. He is able to be supervised in his current location.
In response to questions, she noted that if he was on a conditional discharge and stopped taking his medication and did not follow the team’s recommendations, that they would not be able to bring him into hospital for an assessment. The fact that he has, for the past 20 months, adhered to his medication does not provide the team with the confidence that he will continue to do so in a situation where he is faced with significant stressors from school. For a person such as Mr. Shodunke, with a serious mental disorder his stressors are exacerbated and given his history with an illness that is quite brittle and is impacted by stress, a detention order remains necessary. Dr. Bhullar noted that if Mr. Shodunke manages this year successfully that a conditional discharge might be considered in the following year.
When asked about Mr. Shodunke having stopped his medications last year based on his statement that he had smelled death, she noted that he has a past history of somatic delusions. In the past he once thought that his roommate's flatulence was nerve gas and threatening to him.
When asked about her rapport with Mr. Shodunke, she responded that they have been working together for less than a year and have developed a good rapport. Mr. Shodunke is an individual who is guarded and not spontaneous in his speech or responses. He accepts the team’s recommendations except with respect to their concerns expressed regarding his school schedule. It will be important in the upcoming year for the team to continue to provide a level of support to Mr. Shodunke. She hopes to be able to better understand how receptive he is to the team’s recommendations. He has made comments that he believes that the medications are slowing him down which is what happened prior to the index offence when he stopped taking medication. He needs the detention order at this time to support him.
Submissions
Mr. Dow, on behalf of the hospital, maintained his initial position and noted that Mr. Shodunke has had a very positive year, for which he should be commended. The primary concern that precludes the granting of a conditional discharge is that of the increased stress to which Mr. Shodunke is subject and his poor insight into his need for medication. These are circumstances similar to those leading up to the index offence. The hospital needs be able to intervene quickly if there is any deterioration in his mental health. This is only available on the detention order.
Ms. MacDonald maintained her support of the hospital position. She noted that it will be very important that the hospital retains authority to assist Mr. Shodunke with housing and has the ability to bring him back if he deteriorated due to medication noncompliance and stressors. She submitted that a conditional discharge is not appropriate at this time as he needs the support of the detention order to ensure that he can cope with the stressors of school, but may be a consideration at next year's hearing.
Mr. Bernhardt submitted that his instructions are that Mr. Shodunke is content with his current disposition. Mr. Bernhardt did, however, submit his opinion that a conditional discharge was the disposition that was necessary and appropriate and asked the Board to consider that.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Shodunke continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. This was not contested by his counsel but we make that finding in reliance upon the evidence that we fully accept of Dr. Bhullar and the Hospital Report.
Mr. Shodunke has an illness that is brittle and susceptible to stressors. He has a history of noncompliance with medications. He continues to have no insight into his mental illness or the need for medication. To his credit, he has been compliant with his current regimen of medication over the past 20 months, albeit there was one instance just before that where he stopped taking the medication due to somatic complaints. Mr. Shodunke’s prior medication noncompliance led to deterioration and he has a history of violence when he decompensates. Based on his psychotic illness for which he has no insight and his being very prone to stress, his risk of violence is considered to be significant and we so find.
It is our unanimous finding as well that a detention order is that which is necessary and appropriate at this time. Mr. Shodunke requires the supports of a detention order, particularly given the stressors that he is presently facing. He has just returned to university with a full workload. He has expressed that it is a two-hour commute each way from his residence to the university. He resides alone so must cook his own meals as well and the entirety of the circumstances result in his only getting five hours sleep, though he has indicated that he catches up on the weekend. These additional stressors enhance his risk of deterioration.
Mr. Shodunke has no insight into his mental disorder or his need for medication. Should he, as he has in the past, feel that his medications are impairing his cognitive abilities, there is a risk that he would choose to stop his medication. Based on his lack of insight, Mr. Shodunke would not appreciate a deterioration in his mental health. The evidence before us is that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to return him to the hospital in a timely way before he deteriorated to the point of being a significant risk of engaging in violence.
Further, the hospital must be in a position to approve Mr. Shodunke’s residence. At this point, he has indicated that he enjoys and wishes to remain at his current residence despite its lengthy travel to university. It is hoped that the treatment team might be able, in the upcoming year, to assess Mr. Shodunke’s travel routine and perhaps be able assist in the travel time being improved upon. If in time Mr. Shodunke decides to live closer to the university it is necessary that the hospital approve his choice of residence as being one that does not enhance his risk.
Mr. Shodunke should be commended on his excellent year; on the work he is doing and his pursuit of his educational goals. Mr. Shodunke requires the close supervision that he receives from the treatment team and their support to assist him in managing the stressors of his educational pursuits and to ensure his continued compliance with his medication regimen.
The disposition provides Mr. Shodunke with all avenues to move forward in his reintegration into the community while addressing his other needs and fully protecting the public.
For all these reasons, we maintain the current disposition for the upcoming year.
DATED this 27th 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