Joseph Verrilli (Re), 2025 CanLII 126066

Ontario Review Board

Re: Joseph Verrilli

ORB File No: 8836

Hearing held on: Wednesday, November 5, 2025

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

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

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

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Joseph Verrilli Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl

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

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 3, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 7, 2025, the accused, Joseph Verrilli, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on an Information containing charges of threatening, weapons dangerous, assault police officer and assault with intent to resist arrest, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Justice C. Harris of the Ontario Court of Justice declined to hold a disposition hearing and referred Mr. Verrilli to the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) for that purpose.

2. On November 5, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre”) St. Thomas, for the purpose of Mr. Verrilli’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Verrilli was in attendance and represented by counsel, Mr. Gehl. Ms. Zamprogna appeared as counsel for the hospital and Mr. Rows as counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario.

Index Offences

3. The circumstances of the index offences are as follows:

“Count 1 – Utter Threats - Section 264.1(1) Criminal Code of Canada

On November 28, 2023, the accused was again walking in the hallways of 140 Park Ave, yelling for no apparent reason. The victim was attempting to put her baby to sleep and asked the accused through the doorway to quiet down as the baby was sleeping. The accused made the comment back at the victim, “if you step outside the doorway, your dead.”

The victim was concerned and called police to report the incident. Police attended the accused's residence and attempted to speak to the accused, but he slammed his door and refused to speak to police. Cst CORNISH attended the victim's apartment and was speaking to her when a loud thump was heard outside her door.

Count 2 - Weapons Dangerous – Section 88 Criminal Code of Canada

Count 3 – Assault Peace officer – Section 270(1) a Criminal Code of Canada

Count 4 – Assault with intent to resist arrest – Section 270(1)b Criminal Code of Canada

Cst CORNISH opened the victim's apartment door and was met by the accused holding a 3 foot wooden stick. The accused raised and pointed the stick at the officer and victim in an aggressive and assaultive matter. Fearing the accused may harm the victim or police, Cst CORNISH rushed at the accused and forced him back towards his apartment across the hallway, pushing him against the door. Cst CORNISH attempted to arrest the accused and knocked the wooden stick out of the accused's hands. The accused was forced to the ground and the officer made commands for the accused to place his hands behind his back. The accused refused and kicked upward at the officer striking the officer in the leg and stomach area. Cst CORNISH drew his CEW and ordered the accused to comply with demands. Due to the age of the accused, CEW was not used and was holstered. The accused continued to punch and push away from being arrested by Cst Cornish. Cst CORNISH secured one hand of the accused and secured a handcuff on the left wrist of the accused. Further orders were given for the accused to turn on his stomach and stop resisting but the accused continued to strike at the officer. The officer delivered 2-3 hand strikes to the shoulder /head area of the accused and then secured the right hand of the accused.

The accused was arrested on the charges and transported to PGH hospital for mental health assessment.

At hospital, the accused was held on a form 1 psychiatric assessment and released unconditionally from police custody.

Criminal Record

4. Prior to the commission of the index offences Mr. Verrilli did not have a criminal record.

Background and Personal History

5. Information regarding Mr. Verrilli's background and personal history is taken from Dr. Komer’s report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Mr. Verrilli was born in Sudbury, Ontario and has one older brother with whom he has no contact. During his developmental years, Mr. Verrilli was neither physically nor sexually abused. He indicated to Dr. Komer that he did not have any significant behaviour problems as a youth. Following the completion of grade 13 he attended university where he states that he received a degree in geology. He then obtained a diploma in electronics technology from a community college. It was reported that Mr. Verrilli was also studying for his MBA through correspondence.

6. Mr. Verrilli reports that he was married for about four years to a woman in the United States. He has no children. Other than the ACT team, he has no supports in the community. Mr. Verrilli told Dr. Komer “basically, I'm on my own.” Mr. Verrilli’s employment includes working for a mining company, as a real estate appraiser, operating a gas station/convenience store and working as a retail manager. He last worked full time in 2013 before stopping to care for his mother for seven years prior to her death. Mr. Verrilli reported that he last used cannabis as a teenager and has never abused alcohol, consuming his last drinks several years ago.

Psychiatric History

1. Mr. Verrilli’s psychiatric diagnosis is Schizophrenia. Tare few details about Mr. Verrilli’s prior psychiatric history. Dr. Komer reported that in 2016 while Mr. Verrilli was living in Sudbury, he had paranoid delusions related to his neighbours conspiring against him. Mr. Verrilli acknowledges “quite a few” psychiatric admissions since 2020 to hospitals in Oshawa, Timmins, Lethbridge, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor, and Chatham. The circumstances of his hospital admissions are set out in Dr. Komer’s report. Mr. Verrilli has been apprehended by police under the Mental Health Act on numerous occasions. The facts of most of those apprehensions involve paranoid delusions about his neighbours and aggressive and bizarre behaviour.

Position of the Parties

8. At the outset of the hearing Ms. Zamprogna stated that in the opinion of the treatment team, Mr. Verrilli does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and is therefore entitled to an Absolute Discharge. Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Rows, and counsel for Mr. Verrilli, Mr. Gehl, both supported the recommendation of the hospital.

Evidence

9. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Ajay Prakash. He is the author of the Assessment Report prepared for the purposes of the initial hearing. Dr. Prakash stated that he had not been able to speak directly to Mr. Verrilli’s community psychiatrist, Dr. Oyebode, but had communicated with him by email. Dr. Prakash said that Dr. Oyebode is aware of Mr. Verrilli’s involvement in the forensic system and of the recommendation of the hospital that there be an Absolute Discharge. Dr. Oyebode did not offer an opinion as to the Absolute Discharge.

10. Dr. Prakash stated that Mr. Verrilli requires a Community Treatment Order (CTO) in order to be managed in the community. Mr. Verrilli is currently bound by the terms of a CTO. Mr. Verrilli is also involved with the Chatham ACT team and Dr. Prakash had the opportunity to speak with the representative of that team. Mr. Verrilli has a social worker assigned to him in the community and she was present at the hearing. The social worker has advised Dr. Prakash that Mr. Verrilli is satisfied with his current housing, which was the scene of the index offences. The neighbour who was involved in the index offences has since moved from the building.

11. Dr. Prakash stated that he has spoken to the members of the ACT team who meet with Mr. Verrilli every two weeks, or on an as needed basis. The team described Mr. Verrilli as “incredibly cooperative” in their supervision of him. Dr. Prakash referred to this as significant in mitigating Mr. Verrilli’s risk to the community. The team said that Mr. Verrilli’s symptoms of his diagnosed major mental illness of schizophrenia have “quieted.” He has not demonstrated any active psychotic signs since January of 2024. Dr. Prakash stated that there are still active delusional beliefs which are largely contained and do not become active until Mr. Verrilli is questioned about them. Mr. Verrilli’s insight into his illness is limited and remains a risk factor.

12. Dr. Prakash testified that the relevant question is how Mr. Verrilli’s risk is going to be managed in the community. He stated that Mr. Verrilli has been found incapable of making decisions with respect to his treatment and has been placed on a CTO. His substitute decision maker is the Public Guardian and Trustee (PG&T). As previously outlined, Mr. Verrilli is involved with the community-based Chatham ACT team. Because he is on a CTO, if Mr. Verrilli were to fall away from treatment, then the ACT team have the ability to request a Form 47 to admit him to hospital. Dr. Prakash stated that in addition, since Mr. Verrilli is incapable to consent to treatment, the provisions of Box B of the Mental Health Act (MHA), apply. In Dr. Prakash’s words there are “lots of eyes on” Mr. Verrilli.

13. Dr. Prakash stated that the index offence was committed in November of 2023. Mr. Verrilli has been out of hospital since January of 2024 and that there have been no further hospitalizations or any acts of violence. Mr. Verrilli owns his own condominium in Chatham and has sufficient financial resources to pay all of his necessary bills. He lives a very frugal lifestyle which allows him to stay within his financial means.

14. In conclusion, Dr. Prakash stated that the results of the risk assessment conducted using the HCR-20 is a finding that Mr. Verrilli would represent a low risk under the terms of an Absolute Discharge. Dr. Prakash stated that there is nothing more that the Forensic Program could offer Mr. Verrilli than what he is currently receiving by way of treatment and supervision in the community.

15. In response to questions from Mr. Rows, Dr. Prakash said that the basis for the finding of incapacity to consent to treatment is a result of Mr. Verrilli’s lack of insight into his major mental illness. Mr. Verrilli does not accept that he suffers from schizophrenia. He does, however, recognize that he has been better during the last two years and acknowledges that his delusions have lessened. Dr. Prakash agreed that one of the more important changes in Mr. Verrilli’s treatment has been his acceptance of long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications. He had previously rejected injections and had adherence problems with oral medications in the past.

16. Dr. Prakash said that Mr. Verrilli does not have a history of criminal charges and convictions. He acknowledged that there certainly have been issues in the past of aggressive and threatening behaviour, particularly in 2020, 2021 and 2022. In his opinion these problems were a result of his untreated major mental illness. There have been no further problems since Mr. Verrilli was released from hospital in January of 2024. Mr. Verrilli has also been compliant with the civil mental health system and has not made any challenges to the CTO. Dr. Prakash stated that Mr. Verrilli will continue to require the support and supervision of the community-based ACT team and the structure of a CTO.

17. In response to questions from Mr. Gehl, Dr. Prakash reiterated that there have been no charges or convictions for criminal offences in the past. With respect to the reference to problems in 2020 and 2021, Dr. Prakash agreed that these were verbal threats, yelling and screaming. There were no acts of violence and there were no charges.

18. Dr. Prakash agreed with Mr. Gehl that once hospitalized, Mr. Verrilli was successfully treated, stabilized, and finally released to reside in the community. Dr. Prakash agreed that the difference between the forensic mental health system and the civil mental health system is that the MHA is slower to respond. Dr. Prakash further agreed with Mr. Gehl’s characterization of Mr. Verrilli’s situation as “exactly what the CTO is for.” Dr. Prakash also agreed that he did not think that Mr. Verrilli would go off his antipsychotic medication which he has taken for the past two years. Mr. Verrilli has told him that he will follow the structure of the CTO. Dr. Prakash agreed Mr. Verrilli has been open and honest with him, has stated he will take the medication and that he accepts and will follow the treatment plan outlined for him.

19. With respect to the issue of the significant threat, Dr. Prakash agreed with Mr. Gehl that Mr. Verrilli’s conduct does not rise to that level. He currently has stable housing; he has effective support in the community and is connected with an ACT team that are fully aware of his history. Dr. Prakash agreed that Mr. Verrilli led a pro-social life and has a university education. The onset of his major mental illness of schizophrenia occurred in 2015. Dr. Prakash agreed with Mr. Gehl that Mr. Verrilli has not indicated any desire to discontinue his co-operation with the ACT team. In fact, Dr. Prakash stated that to the contrary, “he seeks them out.” Dr. Prakash agreed that Mr. Verrilli’s only criminogenic risk factor is his major mental illness which is now controlled by long-acting injections. Finally, Dr. Prakash reiterated a comment made at the outset of his evidence that according to the social worker connected to the ACT team, Mr. Verrilli is “incredibly co-operative.”

20. In response to questions from members of the Board, Dr. Prakash agreed that the Assessment Report does set out a history of noncompliance with medication. Dr. Prakash agreed that in the absence of a CTO this non-adherence might reoccur and that is a risk enhancing factor. He said the responsibility for compliance is with the ACT team. Dr. Prakash said that Mr. Verrilli did contest the finding of incapacity and his initial detention in the hospital and lost both of those applications. He has not contested the imposition of the CTO under the MHA. There is no indication of the ACT team falling away and Mr. Verrilli will be connected to them for the foreseeable future. Dr. Prakash did not see the residual symptoms as a risk for violent behaviour. When asked why Mr. Verrilli was co-operating now, Dr. Prakash stated that his illness caused him to have a lack of insight and judgment which affected his co-operation in the past.

21. Dr. Prakash agreed with a member of the Board that with the illness onset in 2015 this was atypically a late onset mental disorder. He opined that he might have had an earlier onset and been missed in other or previous diagnoses. In response to a question about the possibility of a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Prakash agreed that the “standard process” would be to impose a Conditional Discharge at an initial hearing for the first year after a finding of not criminally responsible. However, in Mr. Verrilli’s case the treatment team did not see any need or gain from placing Mr. Verrilli under the jurisdiction of the ORB.

22. Dr. Prakash acknowledged that although Mr. Verrilli was not either charged or convicted, the Assessment Report does set out a number of incidents of violent and aggressive behaviour which occurred in 2020 and 2021. Dr. Prakash noted that this was when Mr. Verrilli was unwell. When asked about Mr. Verrilli’s lack of insight, Dr. Prakash stated that Mr. Verrilli believes that his concerns about his neighbours and their harassment of him are not delusions but are based in reality. Mr. Verrilli has said that the issues with the neighbours all stopped once he was admitted to the hospital.

23. Mr. Gehl called Mr. Verrilli’s social worker, Megan Barr, to give evidence at the hearing. Ms. Barr testified that she is a social worker with the Chatham Kent ACT team. She has held that position for the past 17 years. Ms. Barr said that she has worked with Mr. Verrilli for the past two years. She provides support to him in the community. As an example, she said she would pick him up and take him to court when necessary. Ms. Barr said that as long as Mr. Verrilli is on an active CTO then he would not be discharged from the ACT team. Ms. Barr said that Mr. Verrilli is co-operative with the ACT team but guarded. Mr. Verrilli has said that “he has no choice but to follow the CTO.” He has the opportunity to contest it every six months when it is renewed but has not done so for the past two years. Mr. Verrilli has never objected to the long-acting injections he receives and has always been very co-operative. Ms. Barr stated that to her knowledge Mr. Verrilli has not made any threats to any other individuals and has not behaved in a loud or aggressive manner. She summarized her evidence by stating that if she thought that he was a risk she would not have picked him up in Chatham and driven him to the hearing alone in her motor vehicle.

Submissions

24. At the conclusion of the evidence, Ms. Zamprogna reiterated the submission made at the outset of the hearing. She stated that the index offences had occurred at a time when Mr. Verrilli was living in the community untreated for his late onset major mental illness of schizophrenia. Since the index offence and after being released from hospital, Mr. Verrilli has been under the care of a community-based ACT team with an assigned social worker and a community-based psychiatrist. He has been cooperative with his long-acting injections and there have been no incidents of violent or aggressive behaviour in the past two years. With treatment, Mr. Verrilli has not experienced any further psychotic symptoms since the index offence. Ms. Zamprogna reminded the Board of Dr. Prakash’s opinion that Mr. Verrilli does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. In the absence of any evidence of significant threat then the only alternative available to the Board is an Absolute Discharge.

25. Mr. Rows adopted the submissions of Ms. Zamprogna.

26. Mr. Gehl also adopted Ms. Zamprogna’s submissions. Mr. Gehl very forcibly submitted that in the absence of any evidence of a significant threat the Board has no alternative but to issue an Absolute Discharge.

Analysis and Disposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

28. The Ontario Court of Appeal re-emphasized the onerous test in Re: Gibson 2022 ONCA 527, per Lauwers J.A. at para. 9:

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

29. The Board has carefully considered the evidence of Dr. Prakash and the contents of the Assessment Report prepared by Dr. Komer. Although the historical information with respect to Mr. Verrilli's personal history and background is somewhat limited, it reflects a man who apparently lived a prosocial life until sometime around 2015. Dr. Prakash has fixed this as the likely date of the onset of his schizophrenia. From that point on until his apprehension on the index offences, Mr. Verrilli’s mental illness was largely untreated. There were numerous incidents of what might be considered violent and aggressive behaviour, however, the Board notes that there is no history of being charged with or convicted of any criminal offences. It would appear that the only time that Mr. Verrilli was successfully treated for his illness was after he was apprehended on the index offences and hospitalized.

30. As submitted by counsel, the threshold issue for the Board to decide is the presence or absence of a significant threat to the safety of the public. As set out in the Hospital Report, Dr. Prakash’s assessment of significant risk is as follows:

“It is the opinion of Dr. Ajay Prakash that Mr. Verrilli does not pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and should be given an absolute discharge. The following evidence supports this opinion:

1. The index offence was driven by Mr. Verrilli’s main criminogenic risk factor, his untreated mental condition (schizophrenia).

2. Mr. Verrilli’s schizophrenia has been well managed since approximately January 2024 with no evidence of active psychotic symptoms since approximately April 2024. However, Mr. Verrilli continues to believe in his historical delusional systems. That being said, these historical delusions are largely contained and do not become evident unless specifically questioned about them.

3. Mr. Verrilli’s schizophrenia is managed by a long-acting anti-psychotic injection which he has been on since approximately December 2024.

4. Mr. Verrilli’s long acting-anti-psychotic injection is given by a robust mental health team (ACT team).

5. Mr. Verrilli has been further supervised by a community treatment order (CTO) since approximately January 2024. This CTO has been successfully renewed twice (they are required to be renewed every six months); Mr. Verrilli has not challenged the CTO with the consent and capacity board.

6. Mr. Verrilli is incapable to consent to treatment. This means that he is on an incapable CTO vs. A capable one (voluntary). If the CTO were to fall away, Box B criteria of the mental health could be utilised. This “Box B” allows for a lower threshold to bring and admit individuals into hospital involuntarily.

7. Mr. Verrilli has been living in the community since January 2024. There is no evidence of police involvement, hospital admissions, or concerns from his ACT team.

8. Mr. Verrilli has a good relationship with his ACT team and values their support.

9. Mr. Verrilli has stable housing and is financially stable.

10. Mr. Verrilli does not have the typical (major) violent risk factors of substance use, or anti-social personality disorder. This is further evident by the outcome of the HCR-20 V3.”

11. The Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Verrilli is not a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672. 5401 of the Criminal Code. The only disposition available is therefore an Absolute Discharge.

DATED this 3^rd^ day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. G. Beasley Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board