Re Barnum, 2025 CanLII 126039

Re: Kayin Barnum

ORB File No: 8845

Hearing held on: Friday, November 7, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. J. Ferencz Dr. G. Stones Mr. D. Sandor Ms. M. McKinnon

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Kayin Barnum Counsel: Mr. G.A.R. Grant

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 2, 2025)

Introduction

1. On August 11, 2025, the accused Kayin Barnum, was found not criminally responsible on one charge of assault with a weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Justice K. McHugh of the Ontario Court of Justice did not hold a disposition hearing and referred Mr. Barnum to the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) for that purpose.

2. On November 7, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre”), St. Thomas, Ontario for the purpose of Mr. Barnum's initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Barnum was in attendance and represented by counsel, Mr. Grant. Ms. Zamprogna appeared as counsel for the hospital and Mr. Rows as counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario.

Index Offence

3. The circumstances of the index offence are taken from the Court transcript as follows:

“On Wednesday, May 15th, 2023, at approximately 8:00 p.m. the accused and the victim were in the living room located at H[…] Place in the City of London. The victim was watching YouTube videos when the accused randomly stabbed the victim with a knife on the back of his neck and the back of his upper right arm. The victim was very fearful and ran upstairs where his mother, M.M., was sleeping. The victim ran straight into her bedroom and locked the door as the accused was following him.

Ms. M.M. immediately woke up and stood between the accused and the victim. Ms. M.M. was able to convince the accused to drop the knife and comforted him as he was having a psychotic episode and was out of touch with reality.”

Current Diagnoses

4. The current diagnoses are taken from the Hospital Report:

Schizophrenia

Intellectual Disability

Cannabis Use Disorder

Provisional Neurodevelopmental Disorder related to Prenatal Alcohol Exposure

Rule-out Antisocial Personality Disorder

Criminal Record

5. The accused had a criminal record prior to the index offence.

2022-04-29

1x Assault CBH Sec 267(B)CC Occurrence# 21-109844

(2) 1 Day(s) (Time Served) & Probation 2 Yr(s) Conc. with Sentence Serving & Mandatory Prohibition Order Sec 51(1) YCJ ACT 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Cust

2022-04-29

1 x Causing Unnecessary Suffering to an Animal Sec 445.1(1)(A) CC Occurrence# 21-88387

(1) 1 Day(s) (Time Served) & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 148 day(s) (*I)

2022-04-29

1 x Fail to Comply with Release Order Sec 145(5)(A) CC Occurrence # 22-7583

(1) 2 Yr(s) Conc. With Sentence Serving (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Criminal Harassment by Combination of Proh Conduc Sec 264(3) CC Occurrence # 22-111320

(1) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Discretionary Prohibition Order Sec 51(3) YCJ ACT 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Cu

2023-01-05

1 x Dangerous Operation Sec 320.13(1) CC Occurrence # 22-116351

(1) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody & Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Prohibited Driving 3 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Fail to Stop for Police / Pursuit Sec 320.17 CC Occurrence # 22-116351

(2) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Prohibited Driving 3 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Fail to Comply with Release Order Sec 145(5)(A) CC Occurrence # 22-116351

(4) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Fail to Comply with Sentence Sec 137 YCJ Act Occurrence # 22-109049

(4) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Resist Arrest Sec 129(1) CC Occurrence # 22-116351

(5) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Fail to Comply with Sentence Sec 137 YCJ Act Occurrence # 22-109193

(1) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Fail to Comply with Sentence Sec 137 YCJ Act Occurrence # 22-116351

(7) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-01-05

1 x Fail to Comply with Sentence Sec 137 YCJ Act Occurrence # 22-43701

(1) 45 Day(s) Deferred Custody and Supervision Order & Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 29 Day(s) (*S)

2023-04-11

1 x Uttering Threats / Death or Bodily Harm Sec 264.1(1)(A) CC Occurrence # 23-5226

(1) Probation 2 Yr(s) & Pre-Sentence Custody 126 Mo(s) (*S)

2023-04-11

1 x Uttering Threats / Death or Bodily Harm Sec 264.1(1)(A) CC Occurrence # 23-5226

(2) Probation 2 Yr(s) (*S)

6. Mr. Barnum also has one charge of sexual assault and one charge of uttering threats which are set for trial in 2026.

Background and Personal History

7. Mr. Barnum's personal history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report prepared by Dr. Quinn which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. By way of summary, Mr. Barnum was adopted directly from the hospital as a newborn. His biological mother reportedly had nine children, of which Mr. Barnum's adoptive parents adopted three brothers. Within his adoptive family, Mr. Barnum was third in a sibline of four. The eldest was his adoptive sister, Kayla, who was 17 years older than Mr. Barnum. She had a developmental disability and was unable to speak. The victim of the index offence was Mr. Barnum's older biological brother who was diagnosed with autism at age 3 and had significant language difficulties. The third brother adopted by the Barnums was two years younger than the accused.

8. In 2017, a fire destroyed the family home. This caused the Barnums to move between hotels and a house found by the insurance company. During this time period Mr. Barnum's adoptive parents’ relationship deteriorated and they separated in 2020 and divorced in 2022. It was noted that Mr. Barnum’s behaviour worsened during this separation and divorce. Mr. Barnum struggled through public school especially after the fire. He was able to graduate from grade 8 and entered secondary school. According to his father, Mr. Barnum affiliated with a negative peer group who would drink and use drugs. He began consuming cannabis and stealing items from family members. He tortured and killed the family cat. Mr. Barnum was charged with assaulting his girlfriend. He also owed money, bought cannabis which he smoked while driving, hit another car and ended up in a police chase. Through alternative schooling Mr. Barnum managed to achieve 16 high school credits. Mr. Barnum has had a number of age-appropriate relationships. He does not have any children.

Psychiatric History

9. Mr. Barnum's adoptive parents reported that his overt psychotic symptoms began in the spring of 2023. Following the incident where he had tortured and killed the family cat, he was assessed by a psychiatrist and diagnosed with ADHD, possible fetal alcohol effects, cannabis, and alcohol use disorder in July of 2021. During his detention at Sprucedale Care Centre, Mr. Barnum received ongoing care and treatment for mental health issues.

Position of the Parties

10. At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Zamprogna submitted that in the opinion of the treatment team, Mr. Barnum represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order with privileges up to indirectly supervised hospital and grounds access. Both Mr. Grant and Mr. Rows supported the opinion and recommendation of the hospital.

Evidence

11. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Quinn. He is Mr. Barnum's treating psychiatrist and the author of the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Barnum does meet the qualifications for Development Services Ontario (DSO) support and that the application is currently in process now that Mr. Barnum has been admitted to the hospital. Dr. Quinn acknowledged there is some overlap in the diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorder and prenatal alcohol exposure. He said that for a diagnosis of fetal alcohol disorder there needs to be evidence of perinatal alcohol exposure. Dr. Quinn said that since Mr. Barnum is adopted there is no evidence available, but it is more likely than not that Mr. Barnum does have a fetal alcohol disorder. He stated that one of the consequences of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is intellectual disability. There is also a risk of antisocial behaviour and poor impulse control. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Barnum has significant conduct disorder behaviour as a youth and this has continued with antisocial behaviour into adulthood. However, given Mr. Barnum's age and the onset of a psychotic disorder, Dr. Quinn is not yet ready to make a full diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

12. Dr. Quinn stated that with the introduction of the antipsychotic medication clozapine, there has been a significant improvement in Mr. Barnum's psychotic symptoms. His delusions included believing that surgeons were operating on him telepathically and that there were rappers outside his window at night. In the past he had made more frequent requests to use the STEP room, which is a step above seclusion. Mr. Barnum would request sleeping in the room because it made him feel safe. His symptoms are still present but significantly reduced.

13. Mr. Barnum has, however, continued to exhibit violent behaviour including an assault on his mother which occurred in May of this year during a visit at the hospital. Mr. Barnum was assessed for malingering as part of his NCR assessment. It was Dr. Quinn's opinion that Mr. Barnum was not malingering. Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Barnum has some insight into his illness. While Mr. Barnum does not agree that he is suffering from schizophrenia, he does agree that he has delusional beliefs which he identifies as the result of a mental illness. He also has some appreciation of the benefit of the medications he is taking. The treatment team are still in the process of optimizing Mr. Barnum's medication. Dr. Quinn said that in his opinion Mr. Barnum's ability to be compliant with his medication would be limited without structure and supervision.

14. When asked about substance use, Dr. Quinn stated there has been none since Mr. Barnum has been admitted to the Southwest Centre. However, Mr. Barnum has no insight into its use and has said that if it were available to him, he would use it. Dr. Quinn said substance use programming will be offered to Mr. Barnum, but it will have to be tailored to his cognitive abilities.

15. Dr. Quinn adopted the HCR-20 risk assessment set out in the Hospital Report. He agreed that Mr. Barnum’s risk would be considered moderate under the terms of a detention order in the hospital but would be high were he to be outside of the hospital in the community. Mr. Barnum has some insight into the circumstances of the index offence but not into his risk for violence He has limited stress coping mechanisms and needs supervision and support.

16. Dr. Quinn stated that the treatment team need the authority of a Detention Order to properly treat Mr. Barnum. He will be moved to a treatment unit in the near future where more programs will be available to him. The team would like to get Mr. Barnum’s mother back involved in visiting Mr. Barnum. His father visits weekly and is presently going through the approved person process. Mr. Barnum's brother, who was the victim of the index offence, has no animosity towards him and has visited him at the hospital. In summary, Dr. Quinn stated that the goals of the treatment team are to develop behavioural strategies for Mr. Barnum, optimization of his antipsychotic medications and to have him access the community while accompanied by staff on day passes. He said that Mr. Barnum’s strengths are that he is a likeable and friendly young man and who has strong support from his family.

17. Dr. Quinn was asked about the interplay between a disposition and the outstanding charge where Mr. Barnum has been remanded in custody. Dr. Quinn stated that the proposed disposition has indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges as its most liberal privilege. He said that the treatment team will need to consider the custody remand before allowing Mr. Barnum to exercise any indirectly supervised privileges.

18. Mr. Grant did not have any questions for Dr. Quinn.

19. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Quinn stated that Mr. Barnum is considered a moderate risk in the hospital as the treatment team and staff can take steps to mitigate any issues which might arise. Dr. Quinn confirmed that he had conducted a separate fitness and NCR assessment of Mr. Barnum in relation to the outstanding charges of sexual assault. He stated that he had found Mr. Barnum to be fit to stand trial on those charges and that the not criminally responsible defence would not be available to him.

20. Neither Mr. Rows nor Mr. Grant called evidence at the hearing.

Submissions

21. At the conclusion of the evidence, Ms. Zamprogna reiterated the submissions made at the outset of the hearing that Mr. Barnum is a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order with the privileges outlined in the Hospital Report. Mr. Rows and Mr. Grant supported the submissions of Ms. Zamprogna. Both Mr. Rows and Mr. Grant commented on the potential interplay between the pending ORB disposition and the fact that Mr. Barnum had been remanded in custody on the outstanding charges. Mr. Rows stated that it would be incumbent on the hospitals to make sure that there was no violation of the custody remand in granting any privileges to Mr. Barnum.

Analysis and Disposition

22. The threshold issue for the panel to determine is whether or not Mr. Barnum continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The “significant threat” standard is an onerous one. There must be both a likelihood of a risk materializing and the likelihood that serious harm will occur. An accused is not to be detained based on mere speculation; the Board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the accused to deny them an absolute discharge. As set out in [Winko (1999] 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC)](https://www.minicounsel.ca/scc/1999/694), 2 S.C.R. 625) the threat must be:

(1) More than speculative in nature and must be supported by the evidence;

(2) Significant in the sense of there being a real risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals in the community and in the sense that this potential harm must be serious; and

(3) The conduct creating the harm must be criminal in nature.

As stated by McLachlin, J. (as she then was) at para. 69

“it is for the court or Review Board, acting in an inquisitorial capacity, to investigate the situation prevailing at the time of the hearing and determine whether the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. If the record does not permit it to conclude that the person constitutes such a threat, the court or Review Board is obliged to make an order for unconditional discharge.”

The Ontario Court of Appeal re-emphasized the onerous test in Re: Gibson 202 ONCA 527, per Lauwers J.A. at para. 9:

Huscroft J.A. said in Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (3d) 209, at para. 17, that “the ‘significant threat’ standard is an onerous one”. He added that “[t]he board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the appellant in order to deny him an absolute discharge.” Mere speculation is insufficient. See also, Sim (Re), 2020 ONCA 563, at paras. 63-65, per Strathy C.J.O., Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, 155 O.R. (3d) 185, per Tulloch J.A., at paras. 33-37.

23. The Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Barnum represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has a serious and persistent mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as an intellectual disability. His mental condition has responded to medications but so far these have yet to be optimized. He has undeveloped insight into his risk for violence, mental illness, and his need for treatment. Mr. Barnum has a history of noncompliance with his medication outside of a supervised and structured setting. Even within the secure and supportive environment of the hospital, Mr. Barnum committed an assault on his mother during a visit. As evidenced from his criminal record, he has a significant history of violence and other antisocial behaviour. Given all of the above, the Board has no difficulty in making a finding of significant threat as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

24. The Board is unanimous in accepting Ms. Zamprogna’s submission that these are “early days” in Mr. Barnum's treatment. In drafting a disposition, the paramount concern of the Board is the protection of the safety of the public. Outside of the hospital, the only support Mr. Barnum has in the community is his family. His brother was the victim of the index offence and as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Barnum assaulted his mother during a visit at the hospital. The Board is unanimous in finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order with the privileges outlined in the Hospital Report.

25. In exercising the granting of those privileges, the hospital must take into account the outstanding criminal charge on which Mr. Barnum was remanded into custody.

DATED this 2^nd^ day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. G. Beasley

Alternate Chairperson

____________________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board