Ontario Review Board
Re: Carly J. Decristoforo
ORB File No: 6156
Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley
Members: Dr. S. Hucker
Dr. W. Loza
Ms. M.L. Bridger
Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Carly J. Decristoforo
Counsel: Ms. M. O’Doherty
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Tom
Representative Dr. A. Bickle
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. G. Skerkowski
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION AND DECISION
(Dated November 19, 2025)
Introduction
On July 4th, 2012, the accused, Carly J. Decristoforo, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of mischief, not exceeding $5,000, assault causing bodily harm, assault a peace officer and fail to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Ms. Decristoforo is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”), dated July 31st, 2024, which detains her at the Secure Forensic Unit of Providence Care, Kingston, with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 23, 2025, the Review Board Coordinator of Providence Care advised the ORB that on March 8th, 2025, Ms. Decristoforo was transferred to seclusion as a result of an act of aggression toward a co-patient. The hospital considered this official notification pursuant to s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of the restriction of liberty of Ms. DeCristoforo having been increased significantly for a period exceeding seven days. The ORB responded that a hearing would be scheduled under s. 672.81(2.1).
On October 28th, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at Providence Care for the purpose of the annual review of Ms. DeCristoforo’s disposition pursuant to s, 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code and a hearing of the above-noted ROL pursuant to s, 672.81(2.1). Ms. DeCristoforo was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. O’Doherty. Ms. Tom appeared as counsel for the hospital and Mr. Skerkowski as counsel for the Attorney-General of Ontario.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are described in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“Events of July 25, 2011
“Ms. Decristoforo had been discharged from the Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus emergency room, and was throwing herself on the ground, refusing to leave the hospital. Police attended, the accused was very aggressive. She appeared to be very high on drugs during the altercation and would not allow the police to help her at this time. She was arrested for her safety and placed in the back of the police cruiser where she was very aggressive and kicked the side window out of the cruiser.
Events of August 1, 2011
Ms. Decristoforo was causing a disturbance at the Women’s Shelter. She began assaulting random people as they walked by the residence. According to staff she began to pick fights with other residents. She blocked the front entrance not allowing any person to enter. She suddenly began kicking the legs of a female, unknown to her, walking by. She then punched this woman in the face. The victim’s eye is described as blood soak and indented, and she was taken to an Emergency Room for treatment. Ms. Decristoforo was briefly stopped by multiple persons lending assistance. Unfortunately, that did not last. Ms. Decristoforo then began chasing another person who had come to the assistance of the victim. She did not respond to police who attended when they arrived and read her rights. She would not follow any commands. She was later arrested and taken to the Civic Hospital where she would not respond verbally to any questions when asked and stared at an unfixed point. She was taken to Central Cells where she continued, he unresponsive behaviour … to each question. Decristoforo responded with silence and a blanks tare at an unfixed point.
October 13, 2011
While bound by a recognizance and probation order with the condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, having been apprehended numerous times under the Mental Health Act Ms. Decristoforo had been taken to the hospital with doctor’s advising on those times that she had no mental illness and that her behaviour was all drug-induced.
The accused attended the front lobby at the Elgin Street Police Station and spoke with the officer at the Information Desk. Her behaviour was irrational, and she approached another patron and grabbed on to her. Officers came out to restrain the accused due to her behaviour. She was unresponsive and appeared to be in a psychotic state. Constable Bull and Constable Mougeot attended and apprehended her under the Mental Health Act. They took her to the Civic Hospital. Once there the doctors advised the officers that she would not be admitted because she suffers from no mental disorders and that all her issues were drug-induced. The officers released her unconditionally. Her behaviour turned violent, and she stood up and stated she wanted to go to jail. She attempted to punch Constable Mougeot in the stomach area but was restrained. She was brought to the back of the cruiser where she tried to kick out the windows. The officers put leg shackles on her. She then spat at Constable Mougeot striking him in the head and face and then spat at Constable Bull, striking her in the face where upon she was arrested for assault police.”
Personal History
- Ms. Decristoforo’s personal history is set out in detail in the hospital report dated July 1st, 2024. Briefly summarized, Ms. Decristoforo is currently 41 years of age, born on October 29, 1984. Her childhood was affected by a behaviour disorder identified at the age of three by her parents’ separation when she was six. When her parents separated, she moved back and forth between her parents’ homes but ultimately, in March of 2000, she was placed in a group home by the Children’s Aid Society. This appears to have taken place in Kingston, Ontario.
Criminal History
- No evidence was presented of any prior criminal record although the hospital report does reference a series of charges in early 2011. Ms. Decristoforo pled guilty to 4 counts of assault on March 7, 2025, and was placed on an order of probation for 12 months.
Psychiatric History
Ms. Decristoforo’s use of substances became problematic in early 2011 during an admission to the Providence Care Mental Health Services in Kingston. She is described as having an eight-year history of injecting intravenous morphine and smoking marijuana. A diagnosis of schizophrenia was made. After a move from Kingston to Ottawa in 2011 her ACT Team in Ottawa described her as suffering from primary psychotic disorder, most likely schizoaffective disorder. In July 2011 two admissions to the Ottawa Hospital – General Campus took place due to disruptive behaviour, verbal and physical aggression and threatening. Polysubstance abuse and substance induced psychosis were diagnosed. A few days after her discharge she committed the index offence of mischief and then on August 1st the assault causing bodily harm offence.
Ms. Decristoforo has an eight year history of injecting intravenous morphine and smoking marijuana and that her mental health difficulties had begun around the same time.
The hospital report references a number of admissions to psychiatric facilities and while under assessment at the Providence Care Mental Health Services from August 27th to September 2nd, 2010, and again from September 20th to 24th, 2010 a provisional diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was made. Following her criminal charges in 2011 Ms. Decristoforo was diagnosed again at the Providence Care Mental Health Services and the diagnosis was that of schizophrenia. She was started on a course of risperidone consta at that time. Ms. Decristoforo had a number of admissions in Ottawa during the course of the year 2011, including an admission under the terms of an Assessment Order following the charges on the index offences. She was found unfit to stand trial on August 12th, 2011and a 60 day treatment order to render her fit to stand trial was issued. At that time she was described as uncooperative and aggressive requiring repeated physical and chemical restraints. With treatment her condition gradually improved until she was discharged on a community treatment order and follow up with the ACT Team. Ms. Decristoforo reoffended the day after her release on October 13th, 2011. She was detained at the Ottawa Detention Centre and then on October 16th was placed on a Form 1 and transported to the Ottawa General Hospital. She was initially unresponsive and was found catatonic.
She was eventually discharged back to the detention centre on November 23rd, 2011, and then back to the Ottawa Hospital on a Form 1 on December 3rd, 2011, and ultimately admitted to the Royal Ottawa Hospital on December 16th, 2011. Ms. Decristoforo failed to improve significantly after several weeks, and the diagnosis was that of catatonia in the context of Schizophrenia.
On February 13th, 2012, she was returned to Court and found unfit to stand trial. Her condition did not improve upon which consent was obtained from the Public Guardian and Trustee for treatment with E.C.T. as well as anti-psychotic medication. After 12 E.C.T. treatments Ms. Decristoforo’s catatonia had improved significantly, and she began taking her medication orally. Her condition continued to improve until she was transferred to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit in mid May 2012. She was found not criminally responsible on July 4th, 2012.
Ms. DeCristoforo’s longitudinal history is indicative of a schizoaffective disorder. She has a history of polysubstance abuse. She also has borderline intellectual functioning. Ms. DeCristoforo can be aggressive to people around her and sometimes this is related to paranoid thinking and misinterpreting the motives of others. On other occasions, her aggression is instrumental in that it is for personal benefit or to settle a score.
Ms. Decristoforo’s current diagnoses are:
Schizoaffective Disorder in Remission
Personality Disorder NOS Conduct Disorder
Intellectual Delay Borderline to Mild
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing Ms. Tom submitted that in the opinion of the hospital and the treatment team the decision to restrict Ms. Decristoforo’s liberty between March 8 and March 20, 2025, was warranted and the least restrictive option available to the hospital. Ms. Tom submitted that Ms. DeCristoforo continues 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. Ms. Tom submitted that the hospital would be requesting an amendment to one paragraph to extend the geographical radius of passes available to allow Ms. DeCristoforo to visit with her mother.
Mr. Skerkowski and Ms. O’Doherty supported the recommendations of the hospital, as outlined by Ms. Tom, to both the ROL and the annual hearing. In addition, Ms. O’Doherty stated that Ms. DeCristoforo would be seeking the deletion of the alcohol prohibition clause and the addition of a clause to permit her to have overnight passes into the community.
Prior to the commencement of the hospital’s evidence, the Alternate Chair asked the parties about the sequence of events involving the ROL which commenced on March 8th, 2025. Ms. Tom submitted that it was acknowledged that the ROL which commenced on March the 8th, 2025 ended on March 20th, 2025. As set out in the hospital report, on March 25th, 2025, Ms. DeCristoforo was again placed in seclusion at the hospital. This period of restriction continued until April the 9th, 2025 when Ms. DeCristoforo was returned from seclusion to her unit. Ms. Tom acknowledged that this restriction of liberty was not reported to the ORB as a result of some uncertainty on the part of the administration as to
whether or not it represented a separate and distinct ROL. Ms. Tom stated that administrative steps have now been taken to clarify this situation in the future.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Andrew Bickle, Ms. DeCristoforo’s attending psychiatrist and the co-author of the hospital report which was filed as an Exhibit. This evidence is summarized as follows.
Dr. Bickle stated that he had been Ms. DeCristoforo’s attending psychiatrist since February of 2025. With respect to the ROL which commenced on March 9th, 2025, Dr. Bickle stated that Ms. DeCristoforo had been transferred to Providence Care from the Royal Ottawa Hospital where she had difficulties with a co-patient. When she arrived at Providence Care, she also had outstanding criminal court charges to be dealt with. This was done by video link from Providence Care on March 7th, 2025, and Ms. DeCristoforo received a 12-month probation order. During this time period Ms. DeCristoforo’s mental state decompensated, and she assaulted a male copatient on the unit. She was found standing over the co-patient striking him on the ground and trying to kick him in the head. She was screaming uncontrollably and was extremely agitated. She did not respond to direction and attempted to spit on staff. As a result of her extreme agitation, she was placed in mechanical restraints and also received chemical restraints. She was placed into seclusion on March 8th, 2025. This period of seclusion continued until March 20th when Ms. DeCristoforo was removed from seclusion and returned to the High Intensity Treatment (HIT) room.
Dr. Bickle stated that Ms. DeCristoforo again experienced another decompensation in her mental status on March 24th and 25th, 2025. As a result, she was once again placed in mechanical restraints and received a chemical restraint before being placed into seclusion. Ms. DeCristoforo remained in seclusion until April 9th, 2025, when she was returned to the HIT room.
Dr. Bickle stated that since April 9th Ms. DeCristoforo has been doing well at the hospital. The treatment team have concluded that gradual changes are more effective with Ms. DeCristoforo and receive better results. As an example, he stated that rather than removing all mechanical restraints at the same time, the team made this a gradual process by a slow removal.
As a result, the treatment team were able to eventually move Ms. DeCristoforo from the HIT room to the ward. Ms. DeCristoforo has been more involved in activities on the unit and has requested therapy. There are still day-to-day issues with staff, but these were described as being minor in nature. Most recently, Ms. DeCristoforo has been supported with indirectly supervised privileges in the hospital. Dr. Bickle stated that he believes that indirectly supervised community privileges would be a realistic goal within the next reporting period.
At the present time Ms. DeCristoforo does not have any approved persons. To his knowledge no one has yet approached the hospital with an interest in being an approved person. Ms. DeCristoforo does receive visits from her mother, and these have been going well. When asked, Dr. Bickle stated that he did not support a privilege which would allow Ms. DeCristoforo to have overnight visits with her mother during the next reporting year. He stated that the treatment team needed to evaluate Ms. DeCristoforo’s relationship with mother before any such liberty could be considered.
Dr. Bickle testified that he did not support the removal of the clause requiring Ms. DeCristoforo to abstain from the consumption of alcohol and other substances excluding cannabis. He acknowledged that the Disposition presently in force was one which Ms. DeCristoforo came with from the Ottawa hospital and that it did not prohibit the use of cannabis. He stated that he was not asking for any changes to prohibit the use of cannabis but that given her most recent mental state he did not want to risk any destabilization in her condition resulting from the consumption of alcohol.
Dr. Bickle stated that for the reasons outlined in the hospital report the treatment team considered Ms. DeCristoforo to continue to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He stated that it was a realistic possibility that Ms. DeCristoforo would be able to be transitioned to supervised accommodation in the community within the next 12 months. Dr. Bickle stated that any residence would have to be structured and supervised 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In response to questions from Mr. Skerkowski, Dr. Bickle stated that Ms. DeCristoforo’s mother lives in a community which is in proximity to the hospital. He stated that since her arrival there have been no visits to her mother’s residence by Ms. DeCristoforo. He said that there had not been any discussion about visits and to his knowledge Ms. DeCristoforo had not requested to go there. Dr. Bickle said that there has been no cannabis or alcohol use by Ms. DeCristoforo since she arrived at Providence Care.
In response to questions from Ms. O’Doherty, Dr. Bickle stated that alcohol abuse has not been a problem for Ms. DeCristoforo in the past. He stated that he understood that Ms. DeCristoforo wants to have the ability to have a couple of glasses of wine when visiting her mother, but this is information he has just very recently learned and has not had a chance to discuss it with his patient. Dr. Bickle stated that he did not have any information as to why the prohibition against alcohol was included in the current Disposition beyond suspecting that it was in order to help in stabilizing Ms. DeCristoforo’s mental health.
Dr. Bickle agreed with Ms. O’Doherty that it was possible that Ms. DeCristoforo could transition to 24-hour a day seven day a week supervised housing in the community within the next year. He further agreed that if Ms. DeCristoforo were in such a residence she would be permitted to leave during the course of the day, subject to the rules of the residence.
Dr. Bickle stated that to his knowledge no one had spoken to Ms. DeCristoforo’s mother about the possibility and process of becoming an approved person. Dr. Bickle stated that typically family members are the usual persons who go through the approved persons’ process. At the present time Ms. DeCristoforo has earned privileges which would allow her to go into the community accompanied by staff. Dr. Bickle agreed that the next steps in the transition are to allow Ms. DeCristoforo access to the community with approved persons and ultimately indirectly supervised. Ms. O’Doherty asked if the hospital acknowledged that within the next 12 months Ms. DeCristoforo might transition to a community residence, would it not be feasible to allow her overnight passes to visit her mother. Dr. Bickle said that there is a difference between residing in the community in 24-hours a day, seven days a week supervised accommodation and overnight passes to, in this case, her mother’s residence. Dr. Bickle acknowledged that Ms. DeCristoforo had requested a transfer from the Royal Ottawa Hospital in order to be closer to her mother and ultimately to spend more time with her. Dr. Bickle further agreed that there have been no issues with Ms. DeCristoforo’s visits with her mother at the hospital.
In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Bickle stated that the treatment team had more testing to be done with respect to Ms. DeCristoforo’s cognition. When asked about groups, Dr. Bickle said that Ms. DeCristoforo has been participating in art and coffee groups and as well with the DBT group. He expected that the cognition testing would take place within a few months. Dr. Bickle stated that the treatment team are continuing to reassess Ms. DeCristoforo’s current medication regimen. The team are hopeful that her current prescribed medications can be reduced He acknowledged that there were a number of sedatives in her current list.
Dr. Bickle described at length the difference between seclusion and the HIT room. He essentially described the HIT room as a transition between full seclusion and return to the ward. Dr. Bickle went on to add that since Ms. DeCristoforo’s restriction between March 25th, 2025, and April 9th, 2025, the administration has now decided that any extended periods of time spent in the HIT room are to be considered a restriction of liberty.
Dr. Bickle stated he did not believe that Ms. DeCristoforo had any approved persons while she was detained in the Royal Ottawa Hospital. He said that he was not aware of how long the approved person process takes from application to approval.
Ms. DeCristoforo gave evidence on her own behalf. She stated that when she was living in a group home in Ottawa her mother would come to visit her but that this represented a financial burden for her mother given her limited means. She said that she had not had a visit lately from her mother. Ms. DeCristoforo said that her grandmother lives in Kingston and had visited her at the group home in Vars but not at the ROH. When asked by Ms. O’Doherty why she wanted to visit her mother, Ms. DeCristoforo stated that it was “my home.” She said that she would spend time there on passes from the group home in Ottawa. She would be picked up at the group home residence and driven back to Vars by her mother. Ms. DeCristoforo said she is not quite ready to move into the TRHP 24 hour a day seven day a week supervised housing yet. She would like to develop more of a sense of independence before that transition. When asked about why she wants to consume alcohol, Ms. DeCristoforo said that her mother likes to have a glass of wine or two and wishes to feel like she has a normal life.
Mr. Skerkowski did not have any questions for Ms. DeCristoforo.
Ms. DeCristoforo told Ms. Tom that she did get passes from the group home to visit her mother for up to a week at a time. She said this occurred a couple of times per year.
Ms. DeCristoforo was asked by a member of the Board if she had ever been warned about using alcohol while taking the medications prescribed to her. She stated that she had been warned but added that she had been on antipsychotic medication for an extended period of time and had never had an adverse reaction to consumption. She stated, “I am not an alcoholic.” Ms. Decristoforo agreed that she had been cautioned about the possible magnification of the effects of the medication when consumed with alcohol but stated that when she stays with her mother and has a glass or two of wine there is no problem.
No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
With respect to the ROL, Ms. Tom reiterated the submission made at the outset of the hearing. Ms. Tom then focussed her submissions on the issue of the deletion of the alcohol prohibition and inclusion of the overnight passes for Ms. DeCristoforo to visit her mother. She maintained the position taken by Dr. Bickle during his evidence that the prohibition against alcohol use should remain in the Disposition and that the request for overnight passes during the upcoming year not be granted. Ms. Tom stated that it was premature to consider overnight passes to the home when her mother is not presently an approved person, and the hospital does not have detailed information about the nature of their relationship.
Mr. Skerkowski supported the submission of Ms. Tom.
Ms. O’Doherty also focussed on the issues of the alcohol prohibition clause and the overnight passes. She submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that alcohol has been a problem or would be a problem for Ms. DeCristoforo.
Analysis, Decision and Disposition
As set out in detail in the hospital report, Ms. DeCristoforo was transferred to Providence Care from the Royal Ottawa Hospital in February 2025. Shortly after her arrival she pled guilty to four outstanding charges of assault which had occurred in the Ottawa area. As a result of these pleas, Ms. DeCristoforo was placed on a period of probation for 12 months. Dr. Bickle indicated that these pleas and the resulting probation order were a significant stressor for Ms. DeCristoforo. There was a rapid decompensation in her mental status and on March 8th, 2025, Ms. DeCristoforo engaged in a violent assault on a male co-patient. As a result of the assault and the inability of staff to control her in the moment, Ms. DeCristoforo was placed into seclusion. She continued to demonstrate significantly agitated behaviour throughout the early days of the seclusion but was ultimately transitioned from seclusion to the HIT room on March 20th, 2025. This represented the reported ROL and the resulting s. 672.81(2.1) hearing which was held in conjunction with the annual review. The Board has no difficulty in accepting the joint submission of the parties that on the clear and unequivocal evidence presented in the hospital report and by Dr. Bickle, the ROL was warranted and represented the least restrictive and least onerous option available to the treatment team at the time that it occurred.
The hospital report disclosed that following her transition back to the HIT room, Ms. DeCristoforo’s behaviour decompensated again to the extent that it was necessary to return her to seclusion on March 25th, 2025. The same pattern of behaviour continued until the treatment team were able to transition her back to the HIT room on April 9th, 2025. This significant restriction of her liberties was not reported to the ORB. Ms. Tom and Dr. Bickle submitted that this was due to uncertainty as to the second restriction but there have now been administrative changes which should resolve any doubt as to the nature of this situation should it be repeated. Although not before the Board as a designated ROL, the Board is unanimous in stating that the actions taken by the treatment team at the time were warranted and again represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the team.
The parties made a joint submission to the Board that Ms. DeCristoforo continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order. The Board is unanimous in accepting this joint submission as well-founded on the evidence. The Board need only consider the nature of the violent assault committed within days of her transfer to Providence Care to conclude that Ms. DeCristoforo represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Following the assault, as set out in the hospital report, there followed a protracted period of subjective distress, deliberate self-harm, physical violence against a co-patient and physical violence against staff members. Although the circumstances of the events were not before the Board, the evidence was that on arrival at Providence Care, Ms. DeCristoforo pled guilty to four counts of assault committed while she was detained at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. There is no doubt that the necessary and appropriate Disposition must be a detention order.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms. O’Doherty submitted that Ms. DeCristoforo would like the prohibition against consuming alcohol removed from her Disposition. The purpose of this is to allow her to consume alcohol when visiting with her mother at her home. In her submissions, Ms. O’Doherty stated that there is no evidence that alcohol has ever been an issue for Ms. DeCristoforo and therefore no basis to support the inclusion of the alcohol prohibition. Respectfully, the Board does not agree with this submission. In his evidence, Dr. Bickle stated that he opposed the deletion of the alcohol prohibition because he was concerned about the potential negative impact on Ms. DeCristoforo’s mental status. He stated that he did not want Ms. DeCristoforo to suffer “destabilization” under the influence of alcohol. In Ms. DeCristoforo’s own evidence and in response to questions from a member of the panel, she acknowledged that she had been warned previously about the potential conflict between alcohol and her medications. Notwithstanding this warning, she stated that she had consumed alcohol in the past and did not believe it to be an issue.
A review of the hospital report reflects numerous occasions when Ms. DeCristoforo acknowledged that she was consuming alcohol in contravention of the terms of her Disposition. Though historical, on page 4 of the report, it is indicated that one of Ms. DeCristoforo’s earliest criminal charges was the result of her assault on another female committed while she was intoxicated with alcohol. Ms. DeCristoforo’s transfer to Providence Care was not without incident at the beginning. In her first two months at the hospital, she suffered a significant decompensation in her mental status resulting in extended periods of seclusion. The Board is unanimous in accepting Dr. Bickle’s opinion that the consumption of alcohol has the potential to cause a destabilization in her mental status and accepts his evidence that there is a risk in deleting the alcohol prohibition at this time. The Board also notes Ms. DeCristoforo’s acknowledgment during the evidence that she has previously been warned about the potential conflict between alcohol and her medications.
The hospital report recommends that Ms. DeCristoforo’s Disposition be amended to expand the geographical radius of her passes to 50 km from the hospital. As was explained in the evidence, the purpose of this is to allow Ms. DeCristoforo to visit with her mother whose residence is outside the current 20 km radius. Although Ms. DeCristoforo does not have any approved persons at this time, Dr. Bickle acknowledged that there would be a possibility that her mother might be considered for that role once the treatment team have had the opportunity to assess the relationship between Ms. DeCristoforo and her mother and consider all other factors in assessing approved persons. The hospital recommendation also acknowledges that it is possible that Ms. DeCristoforo will be transitioned to reside in the community in the next 12 months. This transition would be to a 24 hour a day seven day a week supervised residence.
In drafting a Disposition, the Board is guided by the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The primary objective is the protection of the public. The secondary considerations are the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and their other needs. The evidence was that Ms. DeCristoforo was transferred from the ROH to Providence Care in order to be closer to her mother. Ms. Decristoforo has expressed a desire to spend more time with her. Further, the evidence is that Ms. DeCristoforo’s mother would visit her at her previous group home in Vars, Ontario subject to the financial burden that that travel imposed. As set out in the hospital report and in Ms. DeCristoforo’s own evidence, she was given passes in the past to visit with her mother at the residence outside Kingston. The Board is unanimous in finding that Ms. DeCristoforo’s reintegration into the community in all the circumstances should include the opportunity to have overnight passes with her mother. However, the Board acknowledges the unknown factors at this time of the nature of the relationship between Ms. DeCristoforo and her mother in the past and the impact of that relationship on Ms. DeCristoforo’s treatment and mental health. For that reason, the Board finds that it is necessary and appropriate to include a condition that Ms. DeCristoforo can only exercise the permitted 24-hour passes in the presence of an approved person, potentially her mother, and on an itinerary approved by the person in charge.
DATED this 19th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. G. Beasley
Alternate Chairperson
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board