Re: D.R.
ORB File No: 6529
Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. W. Johnston
Dr. G. Nexhipi
Hon. E. Kruzick
Ms. D. Smith
Parties Appearing:
Accused: D.R.
Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino (via Zoom)
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Mr. R. Holden
Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker (via Zoom)
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 18, 2025)
Reasons for the Majority
(Ms. M. Labrosse, Dr. W. Johnston, Dr. G. Nexhipi, and Ms. D. Smith)
Introduction
On May 7, 2014, D.R. was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of arson contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). She is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “ORB”) dated November 4, 2024, ordering her detention at the Forensic Program at the North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site (“NBRHC”) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of North Bay in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Tuesday, October 7, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to conduct the annual review of Ms. D.R.’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. D.R. was present at the hearing represented by counsel, Mr. U. Agostino, who appeared virtually by video.
Issues to be Determined
- The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Ms. D.R. continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition and the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial, without prejudice, positions. On behalf of the Hospital, counsel expressed that Ms. D.R. continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for Ms. D.R. conceded the issue of significant threat and submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the panel found that the threshold for significant threat is met. The majority of the panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with terms and conditions as outlined in the disposition. The minority found that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Disposition with the terms and conditions in the existing disposition.
Index Offence
- The allegations giving rise to the index offence are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
…the accused had been living with her boyfriend who had assaulted her on March 27, 2013. Her boyfriend was arrested for this on March 29th. While he was being held in custody, on March 30, 2013, the accused was seen walking away from her boyfriend’s residence with a white garbage bag full of clothing and within minutes a fire took place in her boyfriend’s home. The accused was arrested for arson on April 11, 2013. Although during her psychiatric assessment she was inconsistent about what happened or could not recall details of what happened, she apparently told the police that she had been upset with her boyfriend for what he had done to her and that she had been drinking most of the night prior to the fire and upon attending her boyfriend’s residence she lit the couch on fire and departed.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated August 28, 2025, the oral evidence of Dr. Munro, Ms. D.R.’s treating psychiatrist.
Background Information
Ms. D.R. is currently 33 years of age. She was born in Sioux Lookout, one of six children. Her father struggled with substance and alcohol use disorder and her parents’ relationship was characterized with domestic violence. Ms. D.R. reports sexual abuse by her father as a child and at least two other sexual assaults by non-family members.
Ms. D.R. completed grade 10 and has had limited employment history which included a short-term job as a cleaner in a band office and a school. In August 2025 she started seasonal employment in the “Spirit Halloween Store” in the Northgate Shopping Centre, North Bay. She has recently secured employment at Sobey’s grocery store, North Bay, as a cashier.
Ms. D.R. has a significant history of substance abuse which began with solvents at age 10, alcohol use at age 11 and daily drug use from ages 13 to 17. She also has had issues with gambling behaviour.
Legal History
Ms. D.R. has no prior adult criminal convictions. A Youth Court history began in 2006 when she was 14 years old. The offences include assault, break, and enter, and multiple charges of failure to comply with court orders.
In 2010, Ms. D.R. was assessed with respect to her fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility on charges of assault with the intent to resist arrest, mischief, criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of undertaking x 3. The criteria were not found to be met. The final disposition of those charges is not noted in the materials before the Board.
Psychiatric History
- Ms. D.R. has a lengthy psychiatric history commencing in 2009. She has been hospitalized for mental health difficulties on several occasions. Her current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia
Cannabis and Cocaine Use Disorders, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
Gambling Disorder
Final Submissions of the Parties
Counsel for the Hospital submitted that, in the circumstances of this case, a detention order was necessary given Ms. D.R.’s mental health and her history. It was submitted that should Ms. D.R. decompensate while living in the community the Mental Health Act (MHA) would not suffice to protect public safety.
Counsel for the Attorney General acknowledged Ms. D.R.’s successes this past year. Given the most recent events of the past reporting year, counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital that there be no change to the current disposition.
On behalf of Ms. D.R., counsel agreed with the finding of significant threat to the safety of the public. It was submitted that Ms. D.R.’s risk could be managed on a Conditional Discharge Disposition with the proposed terms and conditions. In his submissions, counsel referred the Board to Ms. D.R.’s motivation and the numerous milestones of success this past year.
Evidence At the Hearing
Dr. G. Munro, Ms. D.R.’s treating psychiatrist since March 2024, testified at the hearing. Dr. Munro, who co-authored the Hospital Report, dated August 28, 2025, adopted its contents. The Hospital Report provides considerable information concerning Ms. D.R., her personal history, her mental health history, and her course in hospital and in the community. The Report was made an exhibit at this hearing and is only referred to briefly.
Since graduating from the Hummingbird Lodge program in July 2024, Ms. D.R. has been living at Maplewood House, a hospital-run transitional residence. The house, described as a duplex, accommodates 6 to 7 residents. It is staffed by the Hospital (law/health) program team from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Cameras monitor the facility 24/7 with the residents being expected to sign in and out. An outreach worker is on call when staff are not present.
The Hospital Report at p. 39 describes Ms. D.R.’s course over the last twelve months as follows:
Ms. D.R. continues to present as a pleasant and jovial individual, engaging appropriately with both staff and fellow residents. While her social interactions tend to be somewhat superficial and guarded, she remains cooperative, and her mental status has been stable, with no reported auditory or visual hallucinations during this reporting period.
Since her admission to Maplewood House, Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program (TRHP), Ms. D.R. initially demonstrated good progress, adhering to all residence protocols, including nightly check-ins with Osprey Lodge. However, over the past twelve months, there has been a noticeable decline in her participation in structured programming. She continues to participate reliably in the weekly chore group and follows directions well, yet she struggles with self-discipline and initiating tasks when unsupervised.
During this reporting year Dr. Munro testified to growing concern regarding Ms. D.R.’s long standing gambling disorder. By June 2025 Ms. D.R. was gambling to the point where it affected her daily living so that she was left without funds. Dr. Munro also testified that Ms. D.R.’s personal gambling escalated during her relationship with another patient.
Ms. D.R. has a substance use history dating back to 10-years of age. Dr. Munro opined that gambling is a serious risk factor for Ms. D.R. which can lead to substance use and then to Ms. D.R.’s decompensation. During this reporting period all of her random urine drug screens were negative for illicit drugs and alcohol. At the date of this hearing Dr. Munro acknowledged Ms. D.R.’s significant accomplishment of being five years sober.
On February 26, 2025, Dr. Munro testified that Ms. D.R. informed a Maplewood staff member that she resumed a romantic relationship with an ex-boyfriend. He is a forensic patient and well-known to the treatment team, now living in the community. The staff have expressed concerns regarding his well-documented struggles with addiction and gambling and Ms. D.R.’s association with him. Dr. Munro testified that at the time the Hospital Report was being prepared Ms. D.R. reported that the relationship had ended.
Dr. Munro testified that during this reporting year, contrary to the residence policy prohibiting lending money, Ms. D.R. was involved in a financial loan arrangement with other patients from which she profited. A fellow patient reported being threatened by Ms. D.R. not to disclose the arrangement. Another patient disclosed being threatened by Ms. D.R. and her former boyfriend.
Ms. D.R. also was involved in an e-transfer program where she received funds for other residents and retained money funds as a “service fee” for the transfer. Ms. D.R. maintained that this occurred at the request of co-patients. Ms. D.R. also admitted to staff that she extorted money from some patients by threatening to report them for past infractions of program guidelines.
On September 12, 2025, when these violations came to light, Ms. D.R. voluntarily readmitted to hospital. Dr. Munro testified that in her assessment of Ms. D.R. she found no evidence of psychosis, mood disorder or suicidal ideation. Her insight and judgment were determined to be at baseline. Ms. D.R. had limited ability to express the potential risk and consequences of her behaviour. Dr. Munro opined that Ms. D.R.’s breaches were concerning.
On September 17, 2025, Ms. D.R. was discharged from the Hospital and returned to Maplewood, the transitional residence. As a result of the Hospital’s concerns about Ms. D.R.’s contraventions, Ms. D.R. was moved to the portion of Maplewood where she now has nursing staff and greater supervision. Dr. Munro also stated that Ms. D.R.’s psychotherapy sessions were increased to twice weekly. To minimize Ms. D.R.’s access and interactions with other patients, Ms. D.R. was also directed not to attend the Hospital building except for scheduled appointments and programs.
Dr. Munro opined that she and the Hospital team are not supportive of a Conditional Discharge Disposition. Dr. Munro stated that while Ms. D.R.’s behaviour has stabilized since her most recent discharge from the Hospital and return to Maplewood, it is still early days following the concerning activities of the past few months. To Ms. D.R.’s credit, Dr. Munro testified that she has also been hired at a new job (5 days per week for several hours over the past 3 weeks) in the community, as a cashier, at Sobey’s grocery store which has reportedly gone very well.
Dr. Munro referenced Ms. D.R.’s impulsivity and stressors in her life which the hospital team would like to continue to monitor. In the opinion of Dr. Munro and the Hospital team, a continuation of the Detention Disposition would allow the Hospital to return Ms. D.R. to hospital if that became necessary notwithstanding that she returned voluntarily most recently.
Dr. Munro testified that Ms. D.R. has required an increased level of support which Maplewood, a highly controlled living environment, is able to provide her. At the present time Ms. D.R. has not been approved for other housing in the community.
In response to a question from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Munro acknowledged that recent events would indicate some back tracking of Ms. D.R.’s progress and achievements in this reporting year. The concern Dr. Munro expressed was that Ms. D.R. is guarded and is not forthcoming with information until it surfaces and impacts on her. As examples, Dr. Munro referred to the financial problems Ms. D.R. found herself in and her gambling activity.
In response to another question from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Munro expressed that while Ms. D.R. admitted to the concerning activities, Ms. D.R. puts the blame on her former boyfriend.
In response to a question about Ms. D.R.’s money lending activity, Dr. Munro stated that Ms. D.R. was of the view she was helping co-patients and lacked the insight that she was taking advantage of the most vulnerable patients by the activity.
In response to questions from Ms. D.R.’s counsel, Dr. Munro stated that according to Ms. D.R., her relationship with the boyfriend ended about a month ago and that he is now in the community and out of her life.
In response to questions from Ms. D.R.’s counsel, Dr. Munro acknowledged that Ms. D.R. is cooperative with her and the Hospital team, meets with them on a regular basis and is happy to engage with them in the treatment program. Ms. D.R. was the first graduate of the Hummingbird treatment program, an intensive three phase complex trauma-based program for women, for which Dr. Munro commended her.
When asked by Ms. D.R.’s counsel about Ms. D.R.’s residency at Maplewood, Dr. Munro confirmed that Ms. D.R. has resided there for approximately 15 to 16 months. Dr. Munro stated that with a Conditional Discharge Ms. D.R. could continue to live there. Dr. Munro confirmed that Maplewood is transitional, and most residents leave and move on in the community after an average of 19 months. Dr. Munro indicated that the Hospital team plans to have long term residence discussions with Ms. D.R..
When counsel for Ms. D.R. referred her to paragraph 14 of last year’s Reasons for Disposition, Dr. Munro acknowledged her position that before the Hospital could recommend a conditional discharge, they would want to see a longer time in the community with continued abstinence from substance use and adherence to treatment. Ms. D.R. has continued abstinence from substance use for 5 years now. The issues of program participation surfaced within the last six to eight months with the re-emergence of the gambling disorder and are an impediment to that recommendation.
In response to Ms. D.R.’s counsel, Dr. Munro acknowledged Ms. D.R.’s many accomplishments and stated that Ms. D.R. was on the right track and things were going well for her until the last few months. She would like to see her work on her risk factors, especially the gambling disorder. Dr. Munro opined that she does not have the confidence to recommend a Conditional Discharge.
When counsel for Ms. D.R. asked about Ms. D.R.’s recent hospitalization from September 12 to 17, 2025, Dr. Munro acknowledged that Ms. D.R. was at all times cooperative with her and the Hospital team and was then able to be discharged.
In response to Ms. D.R.’s counsel’s hypothetical question about reliance on the Mental Health Act (MHA) in the circumstances as they presented for Ms. D.R. in September of this year, Dr. Munro opined that under a Condition Discharge Disposition the MHA could not have been relied on. In those same circumstances the Hospital team would not have been able to complete a Form 1 to have Ms. D.R. brought into hospital.
In response to a question from a Board member, Dr. Munro acknowledged Ms. D.R.’s cooperation with the Hospital team, her sobriety and many accomplishments including her successful completion of her high school diploma and completing the three-stage program of the Hummingbird Lodge.
No other evidence was called.
Submissions
Significant threat to the safety of the public was not an issue for counsel for all parties. At the suggestion of counsel for the Hospital, counsel for Ms. D.R. commenced with his submission that in the circumstances of this case the Board should make a Conditional Discharge Disposition.
Counsel for the Hospital in response maintained the position that, given the concerns and risks as outlined by Dr. Munro in her testimony, a continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with all the existing terms and conditions was necessary and appropriate. It was submitted that if things go well for Ms. D.R. with that disposition, she could progress to be placed in a more independent setting. Furthermore, it was submitted that if things go well, there is the possibility to request an early review. With the existing Disposition Ms. D.R. enjoys freedoms to be in the community, including working at Sobey’s.
On behalf of the Attorney General, counsel commended Ms. D.R. on her accomplishment of being the first graduate of the Hummingbird Lodge program, on her High School Diploma and on the five years of sobriety. In her submissions counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the position taken by the Hospital. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the last period of this year reporting period was concerning so that a Conditional Discharge in now too soon. It was submitted that the financial challenges Ms. D.R. faced this reporting year present risk. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Ms. D.R. requires more supervision under a Detention Disposition to ensure the safety of the public than she would have under a Conditional Discharge.
Counsel for Ms. D.R. submitted that given the significant progress Ms. D.R. has made this reporting year with her transition to Maplewood and her many accomplishments and as anticipated in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, Ms. D.R. is now at the stage where the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge. Counsel for Ms. D.R. carefully enumerated and detailed, what he stated was, an impressive list of Ms. D.R.’s milestones and accomplishments. He argued that his client’s progress has continued as was hoped by the Board last year, so that a Conditional Discharge Disposition is now appropriate.
Analysis
Significant Threat
- Although the issue of significant threat was not contested, on the evidence at this hearing, the panel nevertheless makes an independent finding that Ms. D.R. continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. In coming to our conclusion, we accept the evidence of Dr. Munro that, bearing in mind the serious index offences and Ms. D.R.’s mental health, Ms. D.R. poses significant risk to the safety of the public. At page 42 of the Hospital Report sets out the following risks of recidivism:
Factors Indicative of Significant Risk
1.Ms. D.R. suffers from a serious mental illness, namely Schizophrenia. Her illness has been characterized by auditory and visual hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, disorganized, unpredictable, and sometimes violent behaviour, emotional dysregulation, poor impulse control, self-injury, and difficulties caring for herself safely.
Ms. D.R. has a lengthy history of substance abuse, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and opioids, and she does not fully appreciate the extent to which her use of intoxicants adversely affects her mental state or behaviour.
Ms. D.R.’s index offence was serious and entailed the potential for considerable harm.
Ms. D.R. has breached the terms of her ORB Disposition Order by using substances while on Unauthorized Leaves of Absence from the hospital.
Ms. D.R. has a history of absconding from the hospital even while under supervision.
Ms. D.R. has been increasingly engaged in online gambling, a known destabilizing activity.
Ms. D.R. has recently admitted to breaching program guidelines, including extorting co-patients for money.
Ms. D.R. currently resides at Maplewood House, which provides her with the transitional housing and at the same time she has the oversight and services of hospital staff during the day. The evidence supports that Ms. D.R. has a good rapport with treatment team members, and, with supervision and was compliant in returning to hospital voluntarily when asked. She has been compliant with her medication regimen and has been mentally stable. Ms. D.R. also just achieved 5 years of sobriety.
The majority of the Board are satisfied that the risks to the safety of the public are well-managed by the oversight Ms. D.R. receives at Maplewood. Moreover, as part of the Hospital team’s management of her risks, Ms. D.R. was moved to the other part of the duplex of Maplewood which provides her greater oversight and support. The residence is staffed from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with 24-hour security cameras. When staff are not present an outreach worker is on call for the residents when staff are not present.
The evidence also supports Ms. D.R.’s positive progression while under the ORB and in the forensic program at the NBRHC. Ms. D.R. has held a Conditional Discharge as an objective, as referenced by the Board in last year’s Reasons for Disposition. The evidence supports that she is well-managed at Maplewood Lodge and that Ms. D.R. can remain there under a Conditional Discharge Disposition. She is agreeable to remain there, and her accommodation will be named in the disposition. Ms. D.R. has been deemed suitable for independent living though discussions between Mr. D.R. and her treatment team are expected to commence over the course of the next year. The Hospital does not need to approve her accommodation.
The evidence also supports that Ms. D.R. is no longer in a romantic relationship which may have been toxic to her treatment plan and to the successful progress she had been making up to that point. The evidence also supports that, on Ms. D.R.’s own initiative, to address the potential risk and the consequences of her behaviour, Ms. D.R. sought the help of Dr. Munro and the treatment team and was admitted into the Hospital on September 12, 2025, voluntarily.
With respect to her serious gambling addiction the evidence supports that Ms. D.R. successfully completed the Hospital’s “Beat the Bet” program, a cognitive behavioural therapy-based group which focuses on addiction, specifically gambling and provides participants with strategies for managing related behaviours and urges.
This past year Ms. D.R. has been able to maintain a positive relationship with family members and has their support. Last year, she was the first graduate in the Hummingbird Lodge trauma treatment program. She has remained adherent to her treatment, has abstained from substances and her mental stability has been sustained. She is nevertheless willing to consenting to a 672.55 treatment condition as part of a Conditional Discharge. Ms. D.R. recently completed her high school diploma, and, most recently she obtained part-time work in the community at Sobey’s grocery store.
To Ms. D.R.’s credit, while she has had some setbacks which she is addressing and cooperating with health care staff, she has had a remarkable year for which she is to be commended. Progress does not always unfold in a linear fashion.
Conclusion
On the evidence, the panel is unanimously satisfied that the jurisdictional threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is met.
A Conditional Discharge is not in any way a reward for the concerning behaviours in which Ms. D.R. engaged in over this past year. While Ms. D.R. has had a challenging year with some concerning glitches, she has been on positive trajectory that should be supported. In view of the notable progress achieved and maintained by Ms. D.R., we are satisfied that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage ongoing risk is a conditional discharge.
We do not believe that a treatment condition is necessary and appropriate, despite Ms. D.R. being willing to consent to it. There have been no issues regarding her compliance with treatment, nor has she expressed any ambivalence about continuing to take treatment.
In coming to our conclusion, the majority have considered Ms. D.R.’s reintegration into society and her other needs. Recognizing public safety as our paramount consideration, the panel concludes that the necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a Conditional Discharge subject to the terms that Ms. D.R.:
Reside at Maplewood House
Report to the person in charge of the facility or her designate, not less than once per week
Abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any; other intoxicant
Submit samples of her urine and/or breath to the person in charge of the facility for the purpose of analyzing whether she has ingested alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant (person in charge will be ordered to require the accused to submit samples of urine and/or breath)
Refrain from having in her possession any firearm, ammunition, or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer.
Refrain from having in her possession any incendiary device or materials
Advise the person in charge or her designate, in advance, of any absence from her residence of 24 hours or more, and
Participate in the rehabilitation program created for her by the person in charge or her designate.
Reasons of the Minority
(Hon. E. Kruzick)
Ms. D.R. has had a good year. She would like to transition to independent living. Her motivation is commendable. The evidence which I accept is that her progress was impeded by activities these past few months which put her at risk and where she took advantage of vulnerable patients. The increased risk caused the Hospital to move Ms. D.R. to a part of Maplewood Lodge where she has greater supervision. Furthermore, to protect other patients, Ms. D.R.’s access, and entry to the Hospital itself has been limited.
The evidence of Dr. Munro, which I accept, is that she and the Hospital team recommend a continuation of the current Detention Disposition. Dr. Munro testified that under a Conditional Discharge Disposition, the MHA would not be adequate to promptly return Ms. D.R. to the Hospital in the event of a decompensation of her mental health status and/or her relapse into substance use.
Ms. D.R.’s current diagnoses include cannabis and cocaine, and alcohol use disorders. Her diagnoses are now in remission given that she is in a controlled environment. Notably, Dr. Munro testified that Ms. D.R. has engaged in gambling activity which affects her financial stability and the ability to meet her essential needs.
During this reporting period, Ms. D.R. admitted to spending all her discretionary funds on gambling which then impacted on her daily living needs to the extent that she needed to access the food bank. Dr. Munro’s evidence is that gambling is a known destabilizing activity which puts Ms. D.R. and, ultimately, the public at risk. Ms. D.R. has recently admitted to breaching program guidelines, including extorting co-patients for money.
The evidence of Dr. Munro is that Ms. D.R.’s main management challenge is potential non-adherence to her treatment plans which increasingly risks the potential of criminal activity. To Ms. D.R.’s credit, when she was made aware of the risk, she admitted herself to the Hospital on September 12, 2025. After a comprehensive assessment Ms. D.R. was discharged on September 17, 2025, and able to return to Maplewood Lodge.
In considering the necessary and appropriate disposition, I rely upon the expert evidence of Dr. Munro and the Hospital team. The evidence at this hearing is that, if Ms. D.R. was left to her own devices, given Ms. D.R.’s clinical history, it is highly likely that she would disengage relying on the mental health support that is now in place for her, that she would discontinue taking her medication and resume consumption of substances. The result would be Ms. D.R.’s rapid deterioration of mental health and thereby putting herself and the safety of the public at risk. This risk could only be managed by a Detention Disposition.
Bearing in mind Ms. D.R.’s reintegration into society and her other needs, the existing Detention Disposition allows her considerable freedoms without putting the safety of the public at risk. Bearing in mind the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code I find that the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstance of this case is a continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the same terms and conditions.
DATED this 18th day of November 2025 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Michele Labrosse
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board