Ontario Review Board
Re: Timothy McGonegal
ORB File No: 5816
Hearing held on: Monday, November 17, 2025
Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital,
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Hanbidge
Members: Ms. K. Weisbaum
Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan
Dr. S. Wiseman
Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Timothy McGonegal
Counsel: Mr. M. Rodé
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Tom
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. A. R. Scott
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 8, 2025)
Introduction
Timothy McGonegal, age 37, was found not criminally responsible on February 28, 2011, on charges of attempted murder, theft of a motor vehicle while armed with a knife, dangerous driving, and failing to comply with probation, contrary to the Criminal Code.
On November 17, 2025, Mr. McGonegal appeared before the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) convened at Providence Care Hospital (“the hospital” or “PCH”), Kingston, Ontario, to conduct Mr. McGonegal’s annual review and to make a Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. McGonegal attended his hearing and was represented by his legal counsel, Mr. Michael Rodé. Also appearing were Ms. Tina Tom, legal counsel representing the interests of the Hospital, as well as Mr. Andrew Robert Scott, Crown counsel, appearing on behalf of the Attorney-General of Ontario. The Board had before it as Exhibit 1, the Hospital Report, dated October 23, 2025, and, by way of background, the most recent Disposition, and the most recent Reasons for Disposition.
Mr. McGonegal is currently subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Board, dated November 21, 2024, which discharges him subject to conditions. Mr. McGonegal currently lives in a subsidized apartment setting.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. McGonegal continues 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 is the necessary and appropriate Disposition which is also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 Criminal Code.
Position of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. Ms. Tom, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted Mr. McGonegal was a significant threat to the safety of the public and supported the continuation of a Conditional Discharge Disposition on the same terms and conditions as set out in the Board’s previous year’s Disposition. Mr. Scott, on behalf of the Attorney General, supported the Hospital’s recommendations. Mr. Rodé, on behalf of Mr. McGonegal, similarly supported the Hospital’s recommendations.
Findings of the ORB Panel
- For the reasons that follow, the Board found that Mr. McGonegal continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is his continued Conditional Discharge, with the conditions noted in the formal Disposition.
Index Offences
- The facts of the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, dated December 5, 2024, as follows:
“On November 4, 2009, at approximately 3:10 am, Mr. McGonegal, a passenger in a taxi, plunged a knife into the driver’s chest. He then ordered the taxi driver out of the vehicle, entered the driver’s seat, placed the vehicle in reverse and deliberately tried to run over the victim. The victim fled and the accused drove away Northbound. The vehicle was later located in a ditch beside an on-ramp to Highway 401. The accused disappeared into the bush but was later arrested at gunpoint without incident. A knife matching the description of that used by the accused was found at the scene of the stabbing. The victim suffered a wound approximately an inch deep into his sternum, which apparently stopped it from plunging into his heart. The accused gave a video statement to investigating officers in which he implicated himself.”
The Hospital Report and last year’s Reasons for Disposition should be referred to for particulars regarding Mr. McGonegal’s history and background. Some highlights are noted hereinafter.
Mr. McGonegal is presently 37 years of age. His psychiatric history commenced in 2008 when he was admitted to hospital for 72 hours and diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. The report notes he had no further psychiatric involvement thereafter until the commission of the index offences. His mother died in a motor vehicle accident in January 2008, and Mr. McGonegal’s father noticed a deterioration in his son’s mental state in May or June 2009, with further deterioration since that time.
He has reported a history of alcohol use, sometimes drinking 12 bottles of beer per day, and, since the age of 14, cannabis use on a daily basis. His criminal record includes a youth court conviction for mischief under $5,000 in January 2007 and an adult conviction in December 2007 for mischief under $5,000.
His present psychiatric diagnoses are Schizophrenia (Paranoid subtype) and Substance Use Disorder (alcohol and marijuana)(in sustained remission). For future reference, the Board notes that the covering/first page of the Hospital Report needs to be amended to more accurately reflect the current state/progression of Mr. McGonegal’s substance use diagnosis.
The Hospital Report describes Mr. McGonegal’s course while he has been subject to the jurisdiction of the Board and details his treatment in the past year. During last year’s reporting period, he was readmitted to the hospital twice for one week on each occasion after testing positive for cannabis use. The first readmission occurred on November 22, 2022, after he admitted to smoking cannabis; he was discharged on November 28 after testing negative for cannabis. The second readmission was on January 18, 2023, when he tested positive for cannabis and methamphetamine. He was adamant he did not use any substances and demanded another urine test.
Staff who completed the second test noted the sample was much cloudier and a different colour than the first. Staff did not witness the specimen collection but did stand outside the bathroom door. Although there was no evidence the sample had been tampered with, staff reasonably suspected tampering, given the second sample was collected only two hours later and its appearance was different than the first. The second sample tested negative for all substances.
Mr. McGonegal was voluntarily admitted by Dr. Hillen to the Forensic Unit for further assessment and was discharged to the community on January 25, 2023. He has professed abstinence since the last major admission with relapse and is tested frequently. He is said to now recognize that substance usage, especially cannabis, is very destabilizing for his psychotic illness and has resulted in relapse in the past reporting period. Stimulants are thought to have a similar destabilizing effect.
Mr. McGonegal has participated in a Narcotics Anonymous addiction group since the Spring of 2023 and has been able to cope with abstinence. He finds the substance abstention condition in his Disposition, reintroduced two years ago, to be helpful and wishes it to remain part of his Disposition.
In last year’s reporting, the Hospital Report at that time described Mr. McGonegal’s mental health as having stabilized following medication adjustments and a period of abstinence from cannabis and illicit drugs. He reports no longer believing the delusions he had about his father, hospital staff, and others, and is aware they were caused by his illness. Since February 2023, he has demonstrated more insight into his illness and the negative effects of cannabis on his health, one aspect of which is his desire to maintain the Disposition condition prohibiting consumption of intoxicating substances.
Mr. McGonegal continues to reside in a one-bedroom subsidized apartment near the outpatient office. He pays his bills and keeps his apartment clean independently.
A Risk Assessment referred to in the Hospital Report, conducted by Dr. R. Douglas, dated September 14, 2021, describes Mr. McGonegal’s history of violence as being of low frequency and high intensity. The opinion is expressed that if he were to reoffend in a violent manner, it would be reactive rather than instrumental or premeditated and driven by fear or anger, which would likely arise within the context of psychotic symptoms and would likely be preceded by decompensation in his mental status.
The authors of the Hospital Report continue to opine that Mr. McGonegal continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, due to his use of intoxicants in the previous years and the quick decompensation in his mental state that results from such use. The authors note Mr. McGonegal is not seeking any change to the terms of his Disposition for the coming year and recommend its continuation as the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Course from September 2024 to September 2025
The Hospital Report update notes that Mr. McGonegal’s mental state has remained entirely stable over the past year though he has dealt with some major stressors, including the death of an uncle and dealing with an infestation of bedbugs in his apartment.
Mr. McGonegal is fully compliant with his prescribed medication regimen and remains abstinent from substances and alcohol. He has not used substances since January 2023.
Mr. McGonegal’s insight appears to have improved in the past year. He is aware of many triggers that are related to mental health relapse (e.g., substance use, loss of close others). At the same time, he has acknowledged difficulties in identifying warning signs once his mental health has started deteriorating. As a result, he has maintained close contact with his community case managers from the Forensic Mental Health Services outpatient team and feels well supported by them.
Given the nature and severity of Mr. McGonegal’s chronic psychotic illness with the ongoing need for close outpatient management, he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The nature and circumstances of the index offences some 14 years ago underscore this threat concern. As stated at page 74 of the Hospital Report:
“Should Mr. McGonegal no longer have the external oversight of a Disposition, his risk for violent reoffending would likely increase into the low-moderate to moderate range. Mr. McGonegal may have difficulty independently identifying signs of mental health destabilization should he experience significant ongoing stress. He may also struggle to utilize appropriate coping strategies or seek timely intervention. Alternatively, a resumption of cannabis use could lead to destabilization of his mental state and increase the risk of anger and aggression. A gradual transition to an alternative community mental health team would help mitigate any increase in risk.”
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. M. Chan is Mr. McGonegal’s psychiatrist. He has been treating the patient for over two years duration.
Dr. Chan was the author of the Hospital Report and adopts its contents.
Dr. Chan was referred to page 74 of the Hospital Report (with the relevant excerpt noted earlier in paragraph 23 of these Reasons) and confirmed that Mr. McGonegal continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, given the nature and severity of his chronic psychotic illness with the ongoing need for close outpatient management.
Dr. Chan noted that Mr. McGonegal’s mental health condition would worsen by any substance use. In the past year, Dr. Chan advised that Mr. McGonegal had developed greater insight. However, he also appreciates that with less support from the hospital’s outpatient team, he would struggle more so. Any increase in his psychotic symptoms would increase Mr. McGonegal’s public safety threat.
Dr. Chan reported that Mr. McGonegal struggled with alcohol use at the beginning of the year when he drank a bottle of beer following the death of his neighbour. He apparently discarded a second beer before consumption. As well, when he had visited a convenience store, he saw beer on display for purchase, but he declined to acquire it and later advised the treatment team of his experience and his actions of self-restraint.
Dr. Chan also mentioned other stressors that Mr. McGonegal had experienced during the previous year, including contending with an infestation of bed bugs in his apartment unit. At one stage, he wished to move and change apartments but decided to remain where he resided after being assured by a follow-up inspection report that the issue had been remedied. He stayed at home mostly, with little social interaction.
Mr. McGonegal stays connected with the outpatient treatment team, seeing his case manager or other staff member at least once weekly. Dr. Chan opined that this level of support was critical for keeping Mr. McGonegal stabilized. The hospital staff are Mr. McGonegal’s primary clinical supports. According to Dr. Chan, any decrease in Mr. McGonegal’s current support levels would result in an increase in his e level.
Dr. Chan added that there had been no management issues or concerns with Mr. McGonegal during this past year’s review period. Mr. McGonegal is medication compliant, with both his long-acting injectable and oral medications.
Dr. Chan noted that Mr. McGonegal did not want to jeopardize his progress, with him not seeking to make any changes to his supporting treatment team membership.
As noted in the Hospital Report (again, at page 74), Dr. Chan reiterated that there is a concerted effort made by the outpatient hospital staff to address relapse prevention in Mr. McGonegal’s case.
In response to questions posed by some panel members, Dr. Chan was asked about what steps had been undertaken to recommend Mr. McGonegal for an Absolute Discharge Disposition in the future. In response, Dr. Chan indicated that Mr. McGonegal was, for his part, doing everything expected of him in his treatment program. The bigger question, according to Dr. Chan, was what particular health system would be best to ensure continued public safety concerns. At present, Mr. McGonegal and the public both benefit from the supports offered by PCH. Dr. Chan opined that, should Mr. McGonegal be transitioned out of the forensic system, it was likely he would face fewer services being offered to him in the current non-forensic system. At present, the forensic system offers Mr. McGonegal a treatment regime akin to a Community Treatment Order but with teeth. Given Dr. Chan’s professional experience, when a patient leaves the forensic system, they have a tendency to drift away from services and supports. Given Mr. McGonegal’s index offences and current type of supervision he receives at present, he requires the available supports offered by the forensic system in order to mitigate his perceived threat to public safety.
To lessen the prospect of Mr. McGonegal remaining on a Conditional Discharge Disposition in perpetuity, Dr. Chan acknowledged that discussions need to the undertaken with the treatment team and Mr. McGonegal about Mr. McGonegal’s contemplated reintegration into the community.
It was noted that the most recent formal and comprehensive Risk Assessment that had been conducted in respect of Mr. McGonegal was completed in 2021. It was observed by a panel member that, despite notations to the contrary, Mr. McGonegal was believed according to the Hospital Report to continue experiencing low-grade symptoms of his diagnosed mental illness. Dr. Chan agreed that he needed to discuss with the hospital’s psychologist the necessity of conducting an up-to-date, comprehensive Risk Assessment for Mr. McGonegal, ideally prior to next year’s Board review.
Dr. Chan testified that Mr. McGonegal is currently subject to urine drug screenings that are conducted twice monthly on a random basis (meaning, Mr. McGonegal is not given advance notice when the testing is to take place).
Apart from Mr. McGonegal’s close connection with the hospital’s outpatient treatment team members and Dr. Chan, Mr. McGonegal also has some social contacts with his father and other family members.
When it was pointed out to Dr. Chan that the Hospital Report (again at page 74) noted that: “Mr. McGonegal may have difficulty independently identifying signs of mental health destabilization should he experience significant ongoing stress”, Dr. Chan concurred with this observation, adding that if Mr. McGonegal were on his own without supports, he might not appreciate the early advent of his psychotic symptoms, which, in turn, would add to the risk to the public.
When questioned by Crown counsel, Mr. Scott, Dr. Chan advised that another area of exploration in the upcoming year towards considering Mr. McGonegal for an Absolute Discharge Disposition was addressing the reduction of Mr. McGonegal’s cravings for substances. As noted earlier in these Reasons, Dr. Chan noted that Mr. McGonegal was given praise for his actions when confronted with access to alcohol in the past year. As well, historically, as recently as 2023, Mr. McGonegal had significant issues with cannabis cravings and use. Dr. Chan indicated that efforts would be made to get updated reports concerning Mr. McGonegal’s cravings (if any) from the hospital’s addictions unit staff members.
In response to questioning by Mr. Rodé, Mr. McGonegal’s counsel, Dr. Chan confirmed that in the past, the hospital acceded to Mr. McGonegal’s request for the removal of his abstinence clause from his formal Disposition, which resulted in Mr. McGonegal indulging in substances and, thereafter, requiring rehospitalization. However, as of this year’s hearing, Mr. McGonegal has sufficient insight to request the continuation of the abstinence clause in his Disposition.
No further evidence was called by the parties at the hearing.
Final Submission of the Parties
- Counsel for all parties maintained their joint position as outlined at the commencement of the hearing, as noted previously in paragraph 3.
Analysis and Conclusion
Mindful that the parties offer a joint position on the appropriate finding of Mr. McGonegal’s significant threat to public safety, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the index offences, as well as the evidence noted in the Hospital Report, supported by the oral testimony of Dr. Chan, amply supports a finding that Mr. McGonegal continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
The Board finds that should Mr. McGonegal no longer have the external oversight of a Disposition, his risk for violent reoffending would likely increase into the low-moderate to moderate range as exhibited at the time surrounding the commission of the index offences, as noted in the Hospital Report.
Additionally, Mr. McGonegal may have difficulty independently identifying signs of mental health destabilization should he experience significant ongoing stress.
He may also struggle to utilize appropriate coping strategies or seek timely intervention. Alternatively, a resumption of alcohol or cannabis use could lead to destabilization of his mental state and increase the risk of anger and aggression.
Accordingly, in all the circumstances, as the Board finds that Mr. McGonegal remains a significant threat to the safety of the public inasmuch as there is a risk of serious physical and psychological harm occurring to individuals in the community from conduct that is criminal in nature, the Board agrees that a Conditional Discharge on the current conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition and the least restrictive and least onerous Disposition. In that way, Mr. McGonegal will have the necessary structure, restrictions, and support needed to ensure his threat to public safety is sufficiently managed and, most importantly, mitigated in the upcoming year.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the joint position of the parties, the evidence of Dr. Chan, and the contents of the Hospital Report entered as an exhibit at the hearing and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of sections 672.54 and 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons (with the public’s safety being the Board’s paramount consideration), Mr. McGonegal’s mental condition, and his reintegration into society and his other needs.
The Board looks forward to the hospital making its best efforts to undertake in the coming year of having an up-to-date, comprehensive Risk Assessment conducted and completed concerning Mr. McGonegal, with the prospect that such assessment being made available to the Board for Mr. McGonegal’s next annual review.
The Board will also be interested in knowing at next year’s annual review what efforts have been made by the hospital to contemplate transitioning Mr. McGonegal to the non-forensic community setting as soon as is reasonably possible.
The Board wishes Mr. McGonegal continued success in the upcoming year.
DATED this 8th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Hanbidge
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board