Ontario Review Board
Re: Christopher Hines
ORB File No: 6386
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:
Chairperson: Ms. Cynthia Fromstein
Members: Mr. Curtis Flanagan Dr. Karen Hand Dr. James Cheston Ms. Barbara Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Christopher Hines Counsel: Ms. Mercedes Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. Kyle Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. Nancy MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 1, 2025)
Introduction
On August 12, 2013, Christopher Hines was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (“NCR”) on four counts of failure to comply with a probation order and three counts of assaulting a peace officer, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
In 2023 Mr. Hines was ordered to be transferred from Waypoint CMHS to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores or “the Hospital”).
Mr. Hines is currently subject to a disposition of the Board dated June 4, 2024, ordering him to be detained at the Forensic Program of Ontario Shores with privileges up to and including the ability to enter the community indirectly supervised.
On April 23, 2025, a Decision was rendered at a Restriction of Liberty Hearing (ROL) finding that the hospital’s decision to transfer Mr. Hines on February 26, 2025 from the FTU General Forensic Unit to the FRU Secure Forensic Unit was and remained necessary and appropriate. Mr. Hines had been transferred to the FTU on February 5, 2025. His transfer back to the FRU followed Mr. Hines engaging in an unprovoked assault on a vulnerable co-patient, breaking his nose.
This panel of the Board convened on October 16, 2025, to conduct Mr. Hines’ annual review. Mr. Hines was present and represented by counsel Ms. Perez. Mr. Hine’s mother also attended the hearing, in support of her son.
At the outset of the hearing the parties indicated their initial positions. Mr. Dow stated the hospital’s position for there to be no change to the current detention order disposition. This position was supported by Ms. MacDonald on behalf of the Attorney General. Ms. Perez did not contest a finding of significant threat and supported the continuation of a detention order within the Forensic Program but submitted that it should be expanded to include the privilege of residing in the community in approved accommodation. This submission was opposed by the Hospital and the Attorney General.
The Board concluded that Mr. Hines remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances is an order pursuant to s. 672.54(c) of the Code directing that he be detained in custody at Ontario Shores on the same conditions as the order made at his last annual review. The Board declined to add community living to the order.
The Index Offences
Assaulting a Peace Officer (3 counts)
In September 2012, Mr. Hines was in custody at the Maplehurst Correctional Centre awaiting the disposition of assault and failing to comply charges. On September 8, 2012, he was taken from the correctional centre to the Oakville-Trafalgar Hospital on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act due to disinhibited and aggressive behaviour while in custody. He was not eating or drinking well and had been throwing feces and alleging staff were harming him. Two correctional officers were assigned to guard Mr. Hines while he was a patient at the hospital. During the course of the day, Mr. Hines displayed bizarre behaviour and wild mood swings. As a result of his behaviour, it was necessary for the safety of hospital staff and correctional officers to use devices to restrain the accused to his bed.
At approximately 6:15 p.m., Mr. Hines managed to free one of his hands from his restraints. When the correctional officers attempted to reapply the restraints, Mr. Hines struck one of the officers in the forehead with a closed fist and spat in his face. The officer was not seriously injured. Mr. Hines then spat in the second officer’s eyes. These acts were the subject matter of the three counts of assaulting a peace officer.
Failure to Comply with a Probation Order (4 counts)
- At the time of these assaults, Mr. Hines was subject to four probation orders that contained conditions that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. These probation orders arose from nine convictions between November 2011 and May 2012 for offences of assaulting a peace officer, assault, failure to comply with a probation order, and mischief. The striking of the probation officer in the forehead on September 8, 2012, was a breach of each of these probation orders, and was the subject matter of the four counts of failure to comply with a probation order.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The written evidence at the hearing included the Hospital Report dated May 20, 2025 and the Addendum dated September 9, 2025, made exhibits 1 and 2. Dr. Harrigan provided expert testimony. Mr. Hines testified on his behalf.
Personal Background and Psychiatric History
Mr. Hines is 30 years old. He was exposed as a child to domestic violence in his home. His parents separated numerous times and then finally when he was 14 years old Mr Hines father, reported to be an alcoholic, moved to the United States and he and his two siblings thereafter lived with his mother.
When he was 15 years old Mr. Hines suffered a severe beating by a group of young adults. This precipitated a marked deterioration in his behaviour and functioning. He began displaying conduct-disordered behaviours, including truancy and shoplifting. He was aggressive and defiant towards his mother, threatening to kill her, spitting on her, kicking and punching walls and damaging her car. Mr. Hines’ behaviours could not be managed at home, and the Children's Aid Society became involved. Eventually, Mr. Hines was placed in a group home
Mr. Hines has a significant history of substances abuse. He acknowledged having began street drugs (cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy, and alcohol) when he was 15 years old and later began using crack cocaine and presenting himself at hospital emergency rooms seeking detox after binging. He has a history of overdosing on illicit drugs which he has indicated were not intentional. His substance abuse has had a considerable impact on his life, and in particular has played a role in his aggressive behaviours.
Prior to the index offences, Mr. Hines had a lengthy criminal record beginning in 2006 as a youth, when following an incident whereby he threatened his mother. He was placed at McMillan Youth Detention Centre for one week as a result. Shortly thereafter, upon his return home, Mr. Hines kicked in his mother’s bedroom door, threatened to kill her, and assaulted two police officers who attended at the scene. He was subsequently placed at Syl Apps Youth Detention Centre. His criminal record consists of multiple convictions for assault, uttering threats, theft, and failing to comply with court orders.
The full details of Mr. Hines psychiatric history are set out in the Hospital Report pages 7-9. Mr. Hines’ first psychiatric admission was to the former Whitby Psychiatric Hospital (now Ontario Shores) when he was 16 years old, in 2006. He self-reported that he has made four suicide attempts in his life.
Mr. Hines’ current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder and Other (or unknown) Substance Use Disorder, Severe.
Mr. Hines has an extensive history of violence, relationship difficulties, substance use, symptoms of schizophrenia, impulsivity, poor self-regulation, violent attitudes and difficulties adhering to treatment or supervision. His experience of psychosis has at times precipitated paranoia, persecutory beliefs, interpersonal conflict and violence.
Recurring difficulties managing Mr. Hines’ tendency towards violence have resulted in his lengthy tenure at a maximum secure facility. There he required multiple periods of seclusions due to his assault against staff and co-patients, threats and on occasion environment aggression However, the frequency of violent events has decreased in recent years. This change has been attributed to improved medication adherence and engagement with therapeutic programming.
When he first arrived at Ontario Shores on December 7, 2023, Mr. Hines was initially cooperative, but soon became irritable and had several issues with staff. At times, when his needs were not met to his satisfaction, he would perceive the staff to be racist. Mr. Hines had several verbal altercations with his co-peers. After being transferred to the Forensic Assessment and Rehabilitation Unit (FARU) on February 5, 2024, Mr. Hines settled in fairly well. He remained compliant with medication.
At the time of last year’s ORB hearing Dr. Bhullar gave evidence that he had not been physically aggressive since his transfer to Ontario Shores, although there had been several incidents where he has had verbal altercations with co- patients, been verbally abusive and used profanity with staff, and has made sexually inappropriate comments. He continues to interpret events through a paranoid lens and has limited insight into his illness. Although he can present as labile, with poor coping skills and a low frustration tolerance, he has recently demonstrated the ability to utilize some adaptive coping strategies. In addition, he is engaged in individual therapy, is willing to participate in programming, and has agreed to engage in concurrent disorders counselling.
Dr. Harrigan has been Mr. Hines’ treating psychiatrist since December 2024. He is presently housed in the secure forensic unit. He had been transferred to the general forensic unit, FTU, in February 2025 but it was only a few weeks later that he committed the assault on the co-patient.
The details of the February 26, 2025 incident were set out in the Hospital Report as follows:
On February 26, Mr. Hines assaulted a co-patient on the FTU, punching the co-patient in the face two or three times and breaking his nose. Of note, the co-patient was extremely low functioning and vulnerable. The day prior, the co-patient had said “fuck you” and shown the middle finger to Mr. Hines, as well as to another peer, and was redirected from this behaviour by nursing staff. On the day of the assault, Mr. Hines reported that the co-patient had resumed this behaviour (saying “fuck you” and giving the middle finger gesture) at lunch time, although staff did not witness this behaviour. Mr. Hines walked up to the peer and punched him repeatedly in the face while he (the peer) was sitting down and eating his lunch. The co-patient did not retaliate or defend himself when Mr. Hines punched him.”
He has difficulty tolerating stress which can increase his risk of violence to others. He targets more vulnerable patients and there are a lot of dual diagnosis patients in the hospital which imposes difficulties in this interactions. On the secure forensic unit it is easier to address those conflicts because of a higher ratio of staff to patient. It is hoped that he will be able to transition in the near future to the general forensic unit. She made it clear that he requires a much more gradual transition plan, wherein he can attend the FTU in advance to become familiar with staff and patients on that unit. The teams will confer regarding strategies to assist him.
Dr. Harrigan testified that Mr. Hines is quite sensitive to perceived injustices and perseverates on them. He misinterprets the intentions of others as malicious or targeting him. He has been working very hard with his peer support work and his behavioural therapist to assist him in developing more healthy coping mechanisms and to try and take a more objective perspective regarding the actions of lower functioning patients.
She testified that it is important that Mr. Hines be aligned with the treatment team on goals for the upcoming year. Adding community living presents the concern that it would create a therapeutic rupture. If he feels the team is not working towards his community discharge he will perceive that as them targeting him and not supporting his goals. She stressed the importance of his being on the same page as the treatment team in the next year. The move toward future community discharge must done very cautiously and gradually.
Mr. Hines underwent a psychological assessment recently which is hoped to provide assistance to how the team works with him toward the goal of independently supervised community privileges. The results of the assessment are anticipated to be received at the next team meeting. Mr. Hines’ cognitive functioning has been previously assessed to be low so it will be helpful to have new information from recent testing.
At the upcoming team meeting the prospective transfer to the general forensic FTU unit will also be discussed. The plan is to take preliminary steps of introducing him to the unit to make him familiar with the milieu and with staff. A lot of communication between the treatment teams will be needed so that the welcoming team can use strategies employed on his present unit; Mr. Hines responds well to validation and debriefing. She anticipates that the necessary work developing coping strategies will take approximately three months.
Currently he is using Hospital and ground privileges, reinstated in May 2025, without incident. He has used accompanied community privileges from the FRU to Oshawa for shopping, also without difficulty. In the past 6 months the policy was introduced by the hospital to allow indirectly supervised Hospital and Ground privileges from the secure FRU unit to help persons ready themselves for transfer to the general forensic unit, and he is utilizing these.
Mr. Hines has not had a positive urine screen since 2018.
Mr. Hines has improved in his reactions to threats and derogatory language in the past six months. There have been instances where he did not respond to copatient taunts and the frequency of conflicts has decreased. He is showing some increased insight that it is his behaviour that might hinder his progress through the ORB system. The DBT therapy is designed to address his distress tolerance.
The issue of exploring complex trauma was raised again at this year’s hearing. Last year, Dr. Bhuller was asked whether the possibility of diagnosing complex trauma had been explored, given Mr. Hines' history of witnessing domestic violence, experiencing traumatic assault and the possibility of brain trauma. Dr. Bhuller stated at that time that complex trauma had not been considered during Mr. Hines’ stay at Waypoint, and Mr. Hines was still in the initial phase of admission at the Ontario Shores. She acknowledged the relevance of considering this diagnosis and agreed that features of borderline personality disorder could potentially stem from complex trauma. At this hearing Dr. Harrigan testified that this can be explored through the individual DBT work with his psychologist. The recent psychological assessment, however, was purely cognitive and not trauma focused.
Dr. Harrigan testified that the inclusion of community living privileges would have a detrimental effect on Mr. Hines’ relationship with his treatment team. There have been a lot of occasions in the past year that focused on his becoming upset when privileges are not granted to him. This speaks to his overall view of the world and his feeling of being victimized and unfairly targeted. The team has been very transparent with him that they are not supporting the inclusion of community living at this time in order to make him successful in having a positive year with movement to the general forensic unit. The team is aligned with his progress and there is a lot of room for growth in the disposition proposed to maximize his privileges.
Mr. Hines’ symptoms of his mental illness are well managed on medication. Dr. Harrigan expressed that she agrees with the current diagnoses but will continue to review the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder as it not clear cut.
Mr. Hines testified. He clearly expressed his frustration at not being supported in his desire to be granted community living privileges in his upcoming Disposition by repeated refusals to do so. He pointed out that he has not been consuming substances and has been using his passes appropriately. He indicated that he understood that the inclusion of these privileges does not mean that he will be discharged immediately. Mr. Hines at length expressed strong feelings that the nursing staff are not supportive of him. He referred also to racial slurs that he has been subject to from co-patients.
Submissions:
The hospital maintained its position. Mr. Dow referred to the evidence of the doctor that community living is not reasonably attainable for Mr. Hines in the upcoming year. He submitted that the hospital’s concerns about Mr. Hines view of being persecuted are illustrated in comments that he has made in the preceding treatment year, and remain unchanged. He noted that the evidence supports the view that Mr. Hines will eventually attain his goal of community living but it is not appropriate to be included in the disposition at this time. The Crown supported the hospital position.
Ms. Perez maintained her initial position seeking that community living be included as a privilege in the Detention Order Disposition. She noted the positive evidence of how things have been going for her client during the past eight months, including his positive use of indirectly supervised passes from the unit. Transition to the general forensic unit is foreseen in the near future with the assistance of the behavioural supports and therapy that he has been receiving. She noted the evidence of Dr. Harrigan that he has improved in his problem solving and coping strategies. Ms. Perez submitted that these are very positive steps compared to his past circumstances at Waypoint. She submitted that the inclusion of a community living privilege is warranted. She indicated that in Mr. Hines’ evidence he addressed the hospital’s concern that this will lead to conflict in that he knows that discharge planning will not begin right away.
Analysis and Conclusion
- The Board finds that Mr. Hines continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. That is not disputed by any of the parties and we find so independently on the documentary and expert testimony evidence, which we fully accept. Mr. Hines has a significant history of violence, including his recent assault on a vulnerable co-patient which resulted in his return to the secure forensic unit. The hospital report sets out, regarding risk:
‘Despite active symptoms of his major mental illness being controlled with antipsychotic medication, his maladaptive personality style continues to result in episodes of conflict with others and has impeded his ability to successfully transition to a General Unit. He tends to perseverate on being targeted and persecuted by others, resulting in episodes of verbal aggression (most commonly), as well as intermittent incidents of physical aggression. He has difficulty taking responsibility for his actions, or reflecting on how his behaviour contributes to interpersonal conflict. ‘
We agree further with the joint position that a detention order is that which is necessary and appropriate. At issue at the hearing was whether the privilege of community living should be added to his current disposition. The Board finds on the evidence that Mr. Hines’ disposition should continue without change and that the privilege of community living is not supported on the evidence.
To his credit Mr. Hines is maintaining medication compliance so that the symptoms of his mental illness are well managed. The hospital report sets out that Mr. Hines has many deep rooted delusions of a persecutory and racial nature. He often fails to take responsibility for his actions and instead accuses staff of unfairly targeting him because they are racist. This is evident from the evidence before us. Again and to his credit he is working with his treatment providers in therapies to assist his personality difficulties. It is hoped that this, along with the support of his team, and particularly their liaising with the team on the general forensic unit, will serve to ready Mr. Hines in upcoming months for a transfer back to the general forensic unit. His recent stay there lasted only weeks.
In the recent past Mr. Hines was transferred in February 2025 from the FRU secure forensic unit to the FTU general forensic unit. On February 26, 2025 he seriously assaulted a vulnerable co-patient, breaking his nose. He was returned to the secure forensic unit, where he remains. The team plans to take carful steps to ready Mr. Hines for a move back to the general forensic unit. He is engaged in behaviour therapy. A slow approach must be taken with the plan being to slowly familiarize him with the staff on the new unit as well as the occupants and it is anticipated that this will take several months. With the necessary careful steps to moderate Mr. Hines’ risk of aggression in response to perceived injustices to him and observe his hoped for progression in utilizing further privileges, it is unrealistic on the evidence that he will be ready for community living discharge within the upcoming year. There is no longer a need to include that privilege to allow an individual to be waitlisted for future housing.
The hospital report sets out that the clinical team is also of the unanimous opinion that the necessary and appropriate Disposition for Mr. Hines remains that of his current Disposition. It is unrealistic to expect that Mr. Hines will be in a position to live in the community in the upcoming year. In fact, given his persecutory personality style, should the ORB include this provision in his Disposition, it is likely to give Mr. Hines the impression that the clinical team and the ORB are at odds, and that the clinical team is purposefully trying to sabotage him, or stop him from progressing, if moving into the community is not actively pursued. In his current privilege package, Mr. Hines continues to have the ability to transfer to a General Unit, and work towards using indirectly supervised hospital grounds and community privileges in the upcoming year. It is hoped that Mr. Hines, and the clinical team, can continue to collaborate and work towards the shared, and reasonable, goal of successfully moving to a General Forensic Unit in the upcoming year.
Mr. Hines’ persecutory viewpoint was made evident in his testimony. The team is being transparent with him for their reasons for not including the community living provision and in their support for his progress. Despite Mr. Hines’ statement that he understands that the inclusion of this privilege would not be ‘immediate’ the evidence supports that he would certainly feel that persons are working against him as the months go by and is it not utilized. This would impede his relationship with his treatment team who are seeking to support him in rehabilitative steps. His frustration is, on the evidence before us, likely to add to his stress and his risk of acting out.
Mr. Hines’ current disposition provides significant avenues for progress and steps toward community reintegration. We wish to commend Mr. Hines for his work with the team. We also acknowledge positively his ongoing abstinence from substance use and medication compliance. It is anticipated that with preparation he will be able to move forward to a return to the General Forensic Unit. The treatment team is taking the necessary steps to help Mr. Hines build his strengths to successfully move forward towards his goals.
Accordingly, we order that Mr. Hines’ current Disposition be continued. We do so in consideration of the primary factor of safety of the public, Mr. Hines’ mental condition, his reintegration into the community and his other needs.
DATED this 1st day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Fromstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board