Re: Brandon Mott, 2025 CanLII 126051

Ontario Review Board

Re: Brandon Mott

ORB File No: 6695

Hearing held on: Monday November 3, 2025

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

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley Members: Dr. J.C. Ferencz Dr. G. Stones Mr. D. Sandor Ms. M. McKinnon

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Brandon Mott Counsel: Mr. S. Gehl

The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

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

AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 3, 2025)

Please see underlined change to original reasons, made December 9, 2025: The title on the first page has been corrected to read “REASONS FOR DISPOSITION”.

Introduction:

1On October 28, 2014, Brandon Mott, who was 24 years old at the time of the hearing, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of theft not exceeding five thousand dollars, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated November 19, 2024, that detains him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That disposition grants Mr. Mott certain privileges including that of living in the community of Southwestern Ontario in an accommodation approved by the person in charge. It also imposes conditions, including that of abstaining from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring the ordered abstention.

2On November 3, 2024, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (hereinafter referred to as the “Hospital”) in St. Thomas, Ontario. Mr. Mott was present for his hearing and was represented by his lawyer Mr. S. Gehl.

3The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, the Disposition mentioned above and the Reasons for that Disposition dated December 10, 2024, a Decision dated August 8, 2025 (related to a Restriction of Liberties Hearing held in July 2025) and the Reasons for that Decision dated September 22, 2025.

4The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Ms. Zamprogna, counsel for the Hospital, expressed the position that Mr. Mott continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained in the seminal case on the issue, Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. She further submitted that Mr. Mott should continue to be subject to a detention disposition having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code the primary of which is that of ensuring the safety of the public.

5Mr. D. Rows, counsel representing the Attorney General supported the Hospital in both of those submissions. and counsel for Mr. Mott joined Ms. Zamprogna in those positions.

6Mr. Gehl for Mr. Mott conceded the threshold issue of significant threat and agreed that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives mentioned. He indicated however that his client was seeking a change to some of the conditions of his disposition, specifically those requiring him to abstain from the use of cannabis. Mr. Mott is also seeking a deletion of the condition that he submit random samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance otherwise with the abstain condition.

7For the following reasons, the Board accepts the joint submission on the threshold issue and has concluded that Mr. Mott represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board draws this conclusion from the seriousness of the index offence that brought Mr. Mott under the jurisdiction of the Board and from his continuing difficulties in managing risk associated with his major mental illness. The Board has also considered the difficulties Mr. Mott has exhibited over the course of this past review period.

8The Board also agrees that a detention disposition continues to be necessary and appropriate. Again, while the panel benefitted from what was largely a joint submission in this regard, it came to its conclusion based on the difficulties Mr. Mott has experienced over the past year, his recent engagement in one-on one psychological counseling, his participation with AA and his recent engagement with an occupational therapist and the fact that all of these very positive developments require some period of time, particularly where Mr. Mott’s progress in them is just at early stages.

9Relative to the request that the Board permit Mr. Mott to consume cannabis and no longer participate in random screening to monitor his compliance with an abstention condition, the Board has concluded that the primary objective of ensuring the safety of the public warrants a continuation of these conditions at this time.

Evidence at the hearing – Background and the Index Offence

10This hearing proceeded just a few months following the holding of a Restriction of Liberties hearing held for Mr. Mott in July 2025. Given the recency of that hearing, it is advantageous to draw background details and information relative to the index offence from the Reasons for Decision dated September 22, 2025:

“8. By way of background, Mr. Mott is 34 years old and is not capable of making decisions related to his treatment and medication. On October 28, 2014, he was found not criminally responsible, as mentioned above, on a charge of theft under $5000. The essence of the charge is that he entered a private residence while its occupants were sleeping, moved around papers and took a cigarette and a lighter. He fled when confronted. He has long-standing struggles with substance use and major mental illness that have contributed to a lengthy criminal record that includes a conviction for assault, several convictions for break and entering and theft. He has a long history of antisocial methods of problem-solving in his quest to meet his material needs. His current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Substance Use Disorder, Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (by history).

9. Mr. Mott’s most recent Reasons for Disposition set out his course under the Board’s jurisdiction. It outlines chronic, serious mental illness, a continuation of active paranoid symptoms, lack of remorse, deceitfulness and disregard for social norms. It explains that Mr. Mott lacks insight globally and that this continues to severely impact his treatment progress. He has poor insight into his substance use issues and the risk they pose to the public. It poignantly states that in the past few years to the date of the last annual review hearing, Mr. Mott has had six readmissions to the Hospital resulting from substance use and mental decompensation. Mr. Mott’s main risk derives from his antisocial personality disorder. The Board was purposeful in noting that:

Dr. Mokhber concluded her testimony stating that if Mr. Mott demonstrates that he can live in the community while maintaining his abstinence from the use of substances, and not engage in any inappropriate behavior, the hope is that he could progress to some kind of discharge disposition at his next review [emphasis added].

The Board at that time was encouraged by Mr. Mott’s, to that point, recent efforts to achieve abstinence from use of substances. It encouraged Mr. mott to maintain a good therapeutic relationship with the treatment team and to engage in programming to develop the skills he needs to reintegrate fully into the community. This was on November 8, 2024.

10. The Hospital’s Restriction of Liberty Report explains that almost immediately after Mr. Mott was moved into a supervised group home in Port Bruce, Ontario, concerns were raised concerning his use, selling, offering and distributing of crystal methamphetamine to other patients. Though the risk to public safety identified in the previous Reasons for Disposition contemplated exactly this type of behaviour, efforts were made to work with Mr. Mott for a period of over three months following which Mr. Mott was served with an eviction notice. Accompanying the notice was evidence that Mr. Mott was providing and encouraging other vulnerable clients in the home with illegal drugs. He was brought back to the Hospital, experiencing a restriction of his liberty, accordingly.”

Analysis and conclusion as to initial restriction of liberty

11Mr. Mott’s almost immediate resort to exactly the type of behaviour that had been identified by the previous panel of the Ontario Review Board as representing a significant threat to the safety of the public, coupled with his eviction and resultant homelessness clearly establishes that the Hospital was placed in a position where it had only one option when considering the objectives (and particularly the primary objective) set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Mott had engaged in serious criminal behaviour that exposed other members of the public to serious harm. He himself had engaged in substance use that has been an established risk factor now for almost a decade. He had no social supports and no recourse to other housing in the community that was suitable, particularly given the regression he displayed on a key risk factor identified by the previous panel. The Hospital’s restriction of Mr. Mott’s liberty was justified, necessary, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to it at the time.

Evidence re ongoing restriction of liberty

12Following Mr. Mott’s readmission to the Hospital on June 23, 2025, he was placed on the Forensic Assessment Unit with a goal of stabilization and further treatment planning around community integration. Mr. Mott continued to show little insight into either his major mental illness or his need for treatment. He refused blood samples or an MRSA swab in spite of the reigning Board disposition. He displayed irritability and some hallucinations and delusional thought. He stated that he had died five times so he could hear spirits and asserted that there were “too many spirits in this place.” He displayed grandiosity and paranoia that targeted treatment providers. He continued in his angry, frustrated and psychotic state through to July 3, 2025, though his symptoms of antisocial personality disorder remained evident.

13In his update to the panel, Dr. A. Prakash, Mr. Mott’s treating psychiatrist explained that Mr. Mott continued on the Forensic Assessment Unit as the Hospital engaged in further assessment to guide the process of Mr. Mott’s reintegration into the community. Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Mott does not do well in highly structured and supervised environments – that he rebels and takes advantage of other patients – and indicated that the Hospital was, accordingly, looking at some form of independent living in the community. This eyebrow-raising approach to the primary objective will require significant safeguards if undertaken. Dr. Prakash is not unaware of this concern. He confirmed that Mr. Mott, to the date of the hearing, was oppositional to residential programming, continued to show little to no insight into the risk his mental illness and substance use poses to the safety of the public, and limited insight into his need for treatment. Mr. Mott is governed by the symptoms of his anti-social personality disorder. Dr. Prakash indicated that Mr. Mott has shown some interest in one-on-one therapy. It may well be that, having regard to the primary objective that guides the Hospital’s implementation and enforcement of the Board’s disposition, significant, sustained progress in one-on-one therapy will be required before Mr. Mott’s reintegration into the community by way of independent living can be given any real consideration. This will surely be a consideration for the next Board.”

11In its Reasons for Decision, the Board indicated that, as of July 2025, Mr. Mott had continued to manifest the symptoms of his major mental illness and had not engaged meaningfully to this point in one-on-one therapy designed to address either of those disorders and the Hospital is considering what remains its only apparent option in satisfaction of the ultimate objective set out in s. 672.54. It encouraged “significant and sustained progress” with one-on-one therapy.

Evidentiary Update

12With this background, the Board received evidence associated with Mr. Mott’s circumstances and progress since the restriction of his liberty. Turning first to the Hospital Report, its update begins at page 195. It notes that Mr. Mott was served with a Notice to End his Tenancy for reasons that he was providing and encouraging other vulnerable tenants in the home to engage in illegal drug use. He himself had struggled with substance use while living briefly in the community, testing positive for amphetamines and other substances such as crystal methamphetamine, cocaine and cannabis. He consumed alcohol. While he denied selling drugs, he was constantly involved in buying jewelry and gambling various quantities of money. He boasted about the money that he made while in the Hospital. He began showing signs of decompensation that included increased paranoia, hallucinations, delusions and anti-social behavioural traits. When returned to the Hospital he showed behavioural and affective instability. He was assaultive towards a female peer and demonstrated aggressive behaviours. He consistently exhibited disregard for social norms and incorporated hospital staff and peers into his delusions.

13Over a period of time following his return to the Hospital, the adversarial content of these delusions decreased, but Mr. Mott continued to show lack of motivation and difficulty with memory. He showed little insight into the symptoms of his major mental illness. He continues to have limited insight into his mental health. He is incapable of making treatment decisions and all decisions associated with his treatment and medications are under the care of the Public Guardian and Trustee. He has poor insight into his need for treatment, and limited insight into his risk of re-offence. He has a history of chronic polysubstance use and does not believe that his use of substances, including cannabis, has any negative impact on his mental status or prescribed medications. The Hospital Report discloses that, historically there have been times when Mr. Mott has used cannabis without experiencing noticeable decompensation and times when he has used cannabis and has experienced clear signs of decompensation. It is unclear accordingly, at this time, whether use of cannabis as a stand-alone substance is a causative or correlative factor associated with historic deterioration of Mr. Mott’s symptoms. There is however a clear relationship between substance use as a whole and the increased difficulties Mr. Mott has experienced in managing his major mental illness.

14Mr. Mott’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizophrenia
• Substance Use Disorder
• Anti-Social Personality Disorder
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (by history).

15The Hospital Report does note that Mr. Mott has used community passes appropriately and that he can present as social and fully engaged. While members of his family do not represent positive social supports at this time, Mr. Mott has returned to baseline functioning. At this stage he is functioning well in the Hospital. He is no longer violent towards others and has curbed his anti-social behaviours. In his update to the Board, Dr. Ajay Prakash praised Mr. Mott for his recent engagement in one-on-one psychological counseling and participation in AA, such as was encouraged by the Board in the Reasons for Decision cited above. Dr. Prakash testified that the treatment team is now working on making sure that Mr. Mott can maintain his engagement with these services. He highlighted the importance of this sustained engagement. Mr. Mott has a long history of problems with substances that cause a resurgence in the symptoms of his major mental illness. He testified that Mr. Mott’s substance use, including his use of cannabis, has been repeatedly linked with an increase in Mr. Mott’s risk of violence. He noted that Mr. Mott has had ten re-admissions to the Hospital since being tested with community living. Almost all of these were related to substance use, notably Mr. Mott’s use of cannabis and his increasing use of crystal methamphetamine.

16While Dr. Prakash agreed with the suggestion from counsel for Mr. Mott, that it would be better to test the impact of cannabis on Mr. Mott while he is in the Hospital, it was Dr. Prakash’s opinion that Mr. Mott was not ready for that test as of yet. Dr. Prakash highlighted in this regard to the need for Mr. Mott to develop firstly his insight and level of investment into his sobriety and care as a general concept as well as his appreciation for the risk his major mental illness and symptoms pose to the safety of the public. Dr. Prakash indicated that once Mr. Mott shows sustained investment in group and one-on-one psychological counseling, the Hospital will be in a position to firstly loosen the cannabis restriction and then, perhaps, consider a deletion of Mr. Mott’s testing condition. Dr. Prakash testified that random testing at this stage is essential. Mr. Mott’s initial changes in his mental state when using substances is subtle and then spiral quickly in significant ways. Dr. Prakash said that, at this stage, the ability to test for Mr. Mott’s use of substances is vital.

17Dr. Prakash indicated that Mr. Mott continues to experience a level of treatment resistance. He is receiving high doses of antipsychotics to manage his schizophrenia. While he is now engaging in some positive services, his risk is only well-managed in the Hospital setting. Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Mott is not at a stage as of yet where community living is a viable option.

18The Hospital Report included an assessment of Mr. Mott’s risk employing the HCR-20, version three, and accepted instrument for the measurement of risk in the forensic setting. The sufficiency and method of Dr. Prakash’s use of this instrument was not questioned over the course of this hearing. He also employed the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk. While Mr. Mott’s likelihood of recidivism was considered low to moderate under a detention disposition, the results of these assessments supported the conclusion that, if Mr. Mott were to live independently in society without any form of supervision his risk of reoffending was high. In addressing Mr. Mott’s overall clinical assessment of risk, the Hospital Report says that

It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Mott continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:

1. Mr. Mott has a chronic, serious mental illness (schizophrenia). He remained symptomatic paranoid, guarded, and suspicious this reporting period.

2. Mr. Mott continued to demonstrate symptoms of his antisocial personality disorder which included breaching his disposition.

3. Mr. Mott lacks insight into his mental illnesses, need for treatment and risk of violence. This severely impacted his treatment progress and community reintegration.

4. Mr. Mott has poor insight into his substance use issues and his relapse into substance use has placed others at risk when living in the community. In the past few years there have been seven readmissions resulting from substance use and mental health decompensation.

5. Mr. Mott continued to demonstrate affective, behavioural and cognitive instability.

6. Mr. Mott requires further treatment and supervision before community placement is reconsidered.

7. Mr. Mott’s lack of internal motivation continues to be a risk; and

8. Mr. Mott has minimal personal supports and would not be able to independently secure mental health support if left to his own devices.

19The Board accepts and relies upon this opinion as adopted by Dr. Prakash over the course of his evidence.

Submissions

20At the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their positions as stated at the hearing’s outset. Ms. Zamprogna for the Hospital argued that Mr. Mott continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and argued that the evidence supported both a continuation of the detention disposition and the abstain and testing clauses as being necessary to ensure the safety of the public. Mr. Rows, speaking for the Attorney General agreed with this submission.

21Counsel for Mr. Mott agreed that the Winko threshold had been met by the evidence and further agreed that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. He indicated difficulty conceding however that the abstention and testing clauses in issue were minimally intrusive. He argued that, at some point, this testing of both the impact of cannabis on Mr. Mott’s symptoms and the risk he poses to the public and the need for random testing should take place. He put the Hospital to its burden in satisfying the Board that to do so now would expose the public to significant threat. He argued the importance of engaging in this testing process relative to Mr. Mott’s ability to use cannabis without experiencing decompensation of symptoms now while he is in the Hospital instead of waiting until he was back in the community to test it, noting that it was drug use that brought Mr. Mott, again, from the community back into the Hospital.

Analysis and conclusion

22While the panel benefitted from the joint submission on the threshold issue of significant threat, as well as that of disposition generally, it nonetheless carefully considered the evidence and came to its own conclusion on these matters. Dealing firstly with the threshold issue, a finding of significant threat has been described as an “onerous” one, requiring a high level of certainty that an individual appearing before the Board poses both a high likelihood of committing serious crimes and that there is a high likelihood that serious physical or psychological harm would flow from that criminality. At no point in time does an individual appearing before the Board bear a burden of establishing the absence of a significant threat. The threat must not be speculative. It must not be grounded alone in the fact that an individual struggles with a major mental illness, lacks insight or engages in the use of substances. There must be a realistically apparent tie between the significant threat defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and the factor or factors being relied upon to inform the finding.

23In the case of Mr. Mott, the threshold finding of significant threat is grounded not just in his major mental illness and the role it played in the commission of the index offence, but in the continuation of his symptoms in spite of treatment and a lengthy period of time under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. Mr. Mott is currently on high doses of antipsychotic medications but continues to experience symptoms, particularly when he engages in the use of substances. Those symptoms, again especially when under the influence of substances, have contributed to aggressive and antisocial behaviours from a time preceding the commission of the index offence through to the commission of that offence and ongoing to the end of this review period. His lack of insight into his major mental illness, symptoms, need for treatment and the necessity of abstaining from the use of substances for fear of a significant threat that has been noted repeatedly over the years is an ongoing concern. The risk scenario described in the Hospital Report, that absent a disposition, Mr. Mott would cease taking his medications, return to the use of substances and begin to commit crimes that pose a real risk of serious physical and psychological harm is realistic. It was seen again over the course of this reporting period and led to a necessary restriction of his liberties and a period of time in the Hospital when his level of decompensation resulted in restriction of privileges. For these reasons, the Board has concluded that Mr. Mott continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

24The Board also turned its attention to the least intrusive disposition available that would address the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The primary of those objectives that must be addressed by both the nature of the disposition itself and the conditions that inform the disposition is that of assuring the safety of the public. Other objectives include the assurance that Mr. Mott’s mental health and other needs are met, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.

25In considering the necessary and appropriate disposition, the Board will ask itself whether any lesser disposition, or condition, is sufficient to manage the risk inherent in the threshold finding. In Mr. Mott’s circumstances, the Board is satisfied that no disposition other than that of a detention order will satisfy the objectives set out in section 672.54. Mr. Mott struggles with multiple major mental illness including a treatment resistant form of schizophrenia. His symptoms persist and are exacerbated by substance use that has continued to be a problem through this review period. His use of substances in the community has led to multiple returns to the Hospital and has left him without housing or positive supports in the community. His use of substances brings about deterioration the signs of which are subtle at first but then rapidly spiral. This has resulted in aggressivity and a further deterioration of insight. Mr. Mott is not capable of making treatment decisions. He requires supervision both with regard to medications and their adjustments. Though he is on a high level of antipsychotic medications he continues to be symptomatic.

26In such circumstances, the disposition must enable the Hospital to respond quickly to signs of decompensation. When Mr. Mott is in a position to return to the community, it will be necessary for the Hospital to be able to approve his housing and monitor his ability to abstain from the substance use that has been a factor in his struggles with significant threat now for a period of years. The Board agrees with the joint submission that a detention disposition is the only order that can realistically address the risk represented in the finding that Mr. Mott continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

27In like manner, the Board must turn its attention to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and the principles of minimal intrusion as concerns each of the privileges and conditions that form part of the detention order. For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Mott raised an issue that will continue to be one of concern leading through to the next annual review – whether an abstain condition that prohibits Mr. Mott’s use of cannabis and a related substance-screening provision is minimally intrusive. To be minimally intrusive, the condition must be logically tied to the Board’s primary objective (assuring the safety of the public) and to the other objectives set out in section 672.54.

28In the Board’s view, there is a logical connection between the continuation of the full abstain condition prohibiting cannabis (together with other substances and alcohol) and the primary objective. The same holds true for the substance-screening provision. Mr. Mott struggles with a major mental illness that has been subject to serious decompensation in response to Mr. Mott’s use of substances, including cannabis. The Hospital Report is clear that, while there have been times when Mr. Mott’s use of cannabis alone has not contributed to an escalation of his symptoms, there have been times when it has. This has been the case over the course of this past review period where use of cannabis and other substances resulted in significant deterioration and Mr. Mott’s return to the Hospital. It is still unclear whether his use of cannabis is causative of, or correlative to past decompensations. Meanwhile, it is clear that there have been multiple incidents where Mr. Mott’s use of any substances, including solely cannabis, has triggered decompensation that is subtle initially but spirals into the dangerously obvious very quickly. Hence the need for continued testing is also a priority having regard to the primary objective.

29To his credit, Mr. Mott seems to have taken the last ruling of the Board, as cited above, seriously. He has engaged in one-on-one psychological counseling and is participating now in AA meetings. His abstinence from the use of substances, medication adherence and sustained engagement in individual and group counseling is promising. Coupled with developing insight into the impact of substances on the risk his major mental illness poses to the public, this type of engagement, sustained over the course of the next reporting period may provide the evidentiary foundation needed to consider again a period of testing where the prohibition of cannabis is lifted while Mr. Mott continues under the close supervision inherent in the Hospital environment, buttressed by random drug screenings. Such an order at this time however is premature in our view. Mr. Mott is still at early stages of engagement of the type of counseling envisioned in the Reasons for Decision dated September 22, 2025. Not only has cannabis been linked to the deterioration of Mr. Mott’s psychotic symptoms (bringing the primary objective into sharp consideration), but it has exacerbated symptoms to the point where he has experienced returns to Hospital and states of decompensation that have caused loss of housing, complicated his mental health and other needs and delayed his progress towards the ultimate objective of community reintegration.

30As a result, the Board concludes that Mr. Mott continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances and that the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code all warrant a continuation of the prohibition on Mr. Mott’s use of all substances, including cannabis, and alcohol. It is also our view that the condition that Mr. Mott submit samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention clause is necessary and appropriate.

31The Board thanks all who have participated in this hearing and encourage Mr. Mott on his continued engagement with counseling, psychological support, treatment adherence and abstinence from the use of all substances.

32An order will issue accordingly.