Re: Richard F. Stephen
ORB File No: 8604
Hearing held on: Wednesday, October 8, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus Hamilton, Ontario
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. A. Kerry Ms. S. Clapp Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Richard F. Stephen Counsel: Mr. L. Dimitry
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. S. Kim
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 25, 2025)
Introduction:
On August 7, 2024, Richard F. Stephen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated October 24, 2024, whereby he is detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHCH” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including indirectly supervised entry into the community of Southern Ontario. He is also required to abstain from substance use, refrain from possessing weapons, and refrain from contacting the victim of the index offence.
On October 8, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at SJHCH to conduct Mr. Stephen’s annual review pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Stephen attended the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Dimitry. Mr. Stephen’s mother attended the hearing by videoconference.
The Hospital Report dated September 2, 2025, was marked as Exhibit 1. In addition to the documentary evidence, Dr. Lemmie Tan gave evidence. Dr Tan is a forensic psychiatry resident working under the supervision of Dr. Joseph Ferencz, who is Mr. Stephen’s most responsible physician.
The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Stephen continues to meet the test of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, taking into account the four factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Position of the Parties:
- At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Barney took the position that Mr. Stephen continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a Detention Order remained necessary and appropriate. However, the hospital was recommending the addition of three terms:
i. community living in approved accommodation within the catchment area of the hospital;
ii. reporting not less than four times per month while living in the community; and
iii. indirectly supervised passes for up to seven days to enter the community within the catchment of the hospital (to facilitate discharge planning).
- Mr. Kim agreed with the position of the hospital on behalf of the Attorney General. Mr. Dimitry conceded the issue of significant threat and indicated that it was a joint submission. The parties maintained their positions in closing submissions.
Findings:
- For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. Stephen continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the Detention Order, with the three additional terms as recommended by the hospital.
Index Offence:
- The circumstances of the index offence are taken from the Niagara Regional Police Service Crown Brief Synopsis, and are set out in the Hospital Report at page 3 as follows:
“On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at approximately 3:15 p.m. the accused, Richard STEPHEN was walking his dog along a recreational trail near Martindale Road and Erion Drive, in the City of St. Catharines. The victim, Jerry SELIGY, was riding his scooter on the same path. The victim is a stranger to the accused.
The accused became irate with victim because he believed the scooter was scaring the accused’s dog. After knocking the victim off his scooter as described in Count 1, the accused unsheathed a knife that he was carrying on his waist and began stabbing the victim about his back and neck.
The victim suffered multiple puncture wounds. He was transported to a hospital where he received stitches and staples to close the wounds.”
- Mr. Stephen reported that his actions were justified and done in self-defence.
Background:
Mr. Stephen’s personal history is outlined in the Hospital Report in detail and will not be repeated here. In summary, Mr. Stephen is a 58 year old divorced man who has two adult children. He was adopted at six weeks old and met all developmental milestones. Mr. Stephen completed high school and worked in a quarry for 19 years. His father died in 2023. He is supported by Canada Pension Plan – Disability (CPP-D) benefits.
Around 2008, Mr. Stephen had an altercation at work and police found a handgun in his vehicle. He was convicted of assault and possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition, and was sentenced to a three year jail sentence. Following this, Mr. Stephen lived with his mother who reported that he was paranoid and talking to himself. She eventually obtained a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) to seek help for her son’s mental health. Mr. Stephen then left the family home and lived in a house purchased by his parents. Mr. Stephen maintained that his family was stealing from him, and told his family that he had obtained a law degree and a medical degree and was working as an undercover police officer and informant for the RCMP.
Mr. Stephen reported that he had issues with substance abuse as a teenager but limited his use in his 20s and abstained from use in his 30s. There was no evidence that Mr. Stephen had used substances at the time of the index offence.
Criminal History:
- Mr. Stephen’s criminal record is set out in the Hospital Report at page 8. It includes the 2009 conviction for assault and possession of a weapon referenced above, as well as a 1988 conviction for trafficking in a narcotic, and a 2017 conviction for assault. The parties did not have information about the specific circumstances of the 2009 assault, nor any information at all about the 2017 assault. This information could potentially be highly pertinent information relevant to the issues the Board needs to consider, and the panel brought this deficiency to the attention of the parties.
Psychiatric History:
The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Stephen does not have a significant known psychiatric history. He was brought to the hospital by police in 2017 after his parents obtained a Form 2 under the MHA. At the hospital he was found to not present a risk of immediate danger to himself or others. He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and no psychiatric medications were prescribed.
Between 2017 and the date of the index offence, Mr. Stephen had numerous encounters with police regarding mental health concerns, was apprehended under the MHA on three occasions, and was found to be a person in crisis on eight separate occasions. Details of these interactions were not available.
Subsequent to his arrest for the index offence, Mr. Stephen was found unfit to stand trial and placed on a Treatment Order. Upon admission to SJHCH, he made numerous statements about having a law degree, a medical background, and that he was a police officer. He claimed that he did “undercover work” and insisted that his psychiatrist contact the RCMP to confirm his status. When the topic of initiating psychiatric treatment was discussed, Mr. Stephen purported to place the psychiatrist under arrest and accused nursing staff of engaging in illegal activity.
The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Stephen’s psychotic symptoms improved with treatment with antipsychotic medications. His persecutory and grandiose delusions softened to some extent and he was less preoccupied with delusions related to his perceived status as a physician or a lawyer. He was found fit to stand trial in January 2024 and a Keep Fit Order was issued. Mr. Stephen was found NCR in August 2024, and has remained at SJHCH since November 29, 2023.
Mr. Stephen’s current diagnosis is Delusional Disorder. He is considered capable with regard to treatment and the management of property.
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Clinical Risk Summary in the Hospital Report stated the following about Mr. Stephen’s reporting period and the issue of significant threat (at page 28):
“Over this past reporting period, there have been no concerning incidents involving Mr. Stephen. He is often reclusive to his room watching TV but regularly uses his privileges and engages in some unit activities with no issues. Mr. Stephen is generally cooperative and pleasant. On his current treatment regimen, his psychotic symptoms remain in remission. However, Mr. Stephen continues to have marginal insight into his need for treatment and his index offence. He describes his previous time in hospital under the authority of a Treatment Order as the only time that he has experienced “paranoid delusions.” Mr. Stephen recognizes that medication has helped him manage his irritability and that “I don’t get as upset anymore.” He acknowledges that the team recommends his ongoing treatment with antipsychotic medication and is willing to adhere to this regimen for the foreseeable future. With regard to the index offence, Mr. Stephen remains adamant that he was acting in self-defence at the time.
To his credit, Mr. Stephen has done well within the parameters of his current disposition. He receives ongoing support from his mother, sister, and daughter and they regularly accompany him for passes. However, due to Mr. Stephen’s lack of insight into his illness and the index offence, it is the unanimous opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Stephen continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. He is currently treated with oral medication, and he has preferred this treatment modality despite the team’s suggestion to transition to a long-acting injectable form. He has stated that he will consider it in the future. Absent the oversight provided by the Ontario Review Board, there exists a significant risk that he would [dis]continue treatment and could experience a subsequent relapse of psychotic symptoms. In our opinion, a detention order with the following conditions is necessary and appropriate to manage Mr. Stephen’s risk.”
The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Stephen has been using his independently supervised passes into the community without issue. It also noted that he has been highly engaged in therapeutic recreational programming, including bi-weekly outings to the YMCA. He completed the Roadmap to Recovery psychoeducational program as well as a cooking assessment.
Mr. Stephen’s mother, sister, daughter, son, and son-in-law are Approved Visitors. He does not have an Approved Person, however the social worker provided education to Mr. Stephen’s mother on the role and the application process.
Dr. Tan testified that he is a forensic psychiatry resident and had been involved in Mr. Stephen’s care since July 2025 under the supervision of Dr. Ferencz. He reiterated that Mr. Stephen had a positive year with no significant incidents or concerns, and does not exhibit any overt delusional thought content. Notably, Dr. Tan testified that Mr. Stephen had recently been changed to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. He had already received the two loading doses and his next injection was due on October 15, 2025.
Dr. Tan testified that Mr. Stephen’s insight into his mental illness is “marginal.” He explained that Mr. Stephen acknowledges that the team recommends the medications and believes that they benefit him, and that they are an important factor contributing to his risk management. Mr. Stephen also recognized that he previously experienced paranoid delusions at the time when he was found unfit to stand trial. However, Dr. Tan was of the opinion that Mr. Stephen would likely discontinue taking medication if he was not under the Board as a result of his limited insight into his illness and the circumstances of the index offence. Mr. Stephen maintains that he was not psychiatrically unwell at the time of the index offence and was only acting in self-defence.
Dr. Tan testified that Mr. Stephen is at the ceiling of his privileges. The treatment team was recommending community living as it is the next appropriate step in Mr. Stephen’s rehabilitation.
In response to a question about what type of housing would be appropriate for Mr. Stephen, Dr. Tan stated that the team had not explored that yet because Mr. Stephen does not have community living in his Disposition. Once that occurs, they will do some assessments and start to explore housing possibilities, including potentially living with his daughter. Dr. Tan noted however, that Mr. Stephen’s daughter is not an Approved Person, so that would be a first step. Dr. Tan also stated that the team had conversations with Mr. Stephen’s daughter and mother and they are well aware of the signs and symptoms of Mr. Stephen’s illness, and have noted a significant improvement since the time of the index offence. Dr. Tan confirmed that the seven day passes being proposed are to allow for a gradual transition into the community.
Dr. Tan testified that it was possible that Mr. Stephen would be ready for transition to the community in the coming year. However, he stated that there are a number of factors to consider including Mr. Stephen’s progress, results of assessments, and the suitability of potential housing options. Dr. Tan noted that Mr. Stephen had already been placed on the waitlist for the transitional unit at the hospital. The addition of the community living privilege would allow Mr. Stephen to be put on housing waitlists. Dr. Tan did not think that Mr. Stephen would require 24/7 supervision.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Tan stated that Mr. Stephen was not able to meaningfully participate in cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) the last time that it was offered and he hoped he would be ready for the next time. Dr. Tan was of the opinion that Mr. Stephen has a very good prognosis if he continues with treatment. Without treatment, he has a high risk of relapse and acute psychotic symptoms.
Dr. Tan was asked about the connection between Mr. Stephen’s delusions and harm to the public. He responded that Mr. Stephen’s misrepresentation that he was a police officer or other professional had the potential to harm the public, and his paranoia was also a risk factor. Dr. Tan noted that Mr. Stephen’s apartment was nailed shut around the time of the index offence suggesting that he was fearful for his safety.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Tan, the panel concluded that there was clear evidence that Mr. Stephen remains a significant threat to public safety. Mr. Stephen has a persistent mental illness that led to a serious assault on a stranger. He also has a criminal record involving assaults and a weapon. Mr. Stephen’s marginal insight into his illness and the psychotic symptoms he was experiencing at the time of the index offence increases the risk that he will act on his delusions in a violent way. Mr. Stephen’s tenure under the Board has been short, and although he has progressed very well thus far, the panel was persuaded that without the supervision of the Board, Mr. Stephen would become noncompliant with his medication and his mental state would decompensate. This would likely lead to physical violence or psychological harm to members of the public.
The panel accepted and agreed with the joint submission that a continuation of a Detention Order with the addition of three terms related to community living was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition for Mr. Stephen at this time. Mr. Stephen had a positive year and has reached the ceiling of his privileges. The next step in his recovery is to commence reintegration into the community and discharge planning. This will start with a move to a transitional unit at the hospital and a number of assessments. Depending on Mr. Stephen’s progress, the treatment team will then explore what housing options may be available and appropriate for Mr. Stephen, and this will likely include a consideration of a placement with family. It is important that the hospital has the ability to approve Mr. Stephen’s housing when he is ready for that transition. The seven days passes being proposed will allow for a gradual transition to the community.
Mr. Stephen is to be commended for his progress this year and his cooperation with the treatment team. His Disposition will now enable him to continue on this positive trajectory.
DATED this 25th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Suzanne Clapp Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board