Re: Daniel Bateman
ORB File No: 7616
Hearing held on: Monday, November 17, 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. J. Hanbidge
Members: Ms. K. Weisbaum
Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan
Dr. S. Wiseman
Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Daniel Bateman
Counsel: Mr. M. Rodé
The person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Tom
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. A. R. Scott
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated December 8, 2025)
Introduction:
On October 3, 2019, the accused, Daniel Bateman, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failure or refusal to comply with demand, flight from peace officer, operation while prohibited, operation while impaired-alcohol and drugs, possession of a schedule 1 substance methamphetamine and possession of property obtained by crime over $5000.00, all contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Bateman is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”), dated November 21, 2024, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of Providence Care Hospital (“the hospital” or “PCH”), Kingston, Ontario, with terms up to and including living in the community of Kingston, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
By letter dated September 12, 2025, the hospital notified the Board pursuant to s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Bateman had been readmitted to the Hospital beginning on August 20, 2025, for a period in excess of seven days during which his liberty had been significantly restricted.
On November 17, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at the hospital to hold both a review of the restriction of Mr. Bateman’s liberty (“ROL”), as well as a review and reassessment of his current Disposition. Mr. Bateman attended the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Rodé.
Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, all parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. Ms. Tom, legal counsel for PCH, submitted that Mr. Bateman’s ROL was necessary and appropriate at the time the ROL was imposed, and that it continues to be so throughout its continued duration. Ms. Tom also submitted that Mr. Bateman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is his continued detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the hospital, with the same conditions and privileges as contained in last year’s Disposition.
Mr. Scott advised that the Attorney General of Ontario was in agreement with the hospital’s position concerning Mr. Bateman’s recent ROL, as well as agreeing with the hospital’s position that Mr. Bateman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the current Detention Disposition Order needs to be maintained on its same terms as imposed by the Board at last year’s review hearing.
Mr. Rodé, counsel for Mr. Bateman, advised the Board that Mr. Bateman was joining both the hospital and the Attorney General in their positions that his ROL was and continues to be justified, and that he continues to represent a significant threat to public safety warranting the same Disposition as was imposed on him by the Board at last year’s review hearing.
For the reasons that follow, this Board concluded that the ROL was necessary and appropriate at the time the ROL was imposed and that it continues to be so throughout its continued duration. The Board also found that Mr. Bateman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that he continues to be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of PCH, with no changes to the Disposition that had been issued during the previous year.
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The record at the hearing included the hospital’s ROL Notice letter, previously referenced in these Reasons, as well as the Board’s acknowledgement response correspondence, dated September 15, 2025. The evidence consisted of the Hospital Report, dated October 26, 2025, as well as the oral evidence of Dr. Andrew Bickle, Mr. Bateman’s current treating psychiatrist.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences were set out in detail in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, dated November 21, 2024, and are noted as follows:
“On Saturday, the 1st of June 2019, at approximately 8:37 a.m., Kingston Police Force reported to Lennox & Addington County Ontario Provincial Police, that they had an issue with a male, Daniel Bateman, DOB:1 985/05/07. He has mental health issues. He took off from his residence in Kingston. They are attempting to contact him, in order to get him some assistance with his mental health problems, as he is currently delusional.
The van, is a dark Dodge Caravan, Ontario marker BTXZ265.
At approximately 8:55 a.m., L&A county units observed the vehicle; passing the Twin Peaks Motel, that matched the description, Vehicle passed officers at a high rate of speed and they believed it to be headed eastbound on Highway 2.
At 9:09 a.m., Kingston Police Force reported that RPG exists, as the vehicle he is operating has been reported stolen to them.
At approximately 9:36 a.m. I began heading Westbound on Country Road 2 to BOLO for the Caravan.
At approximately 9:40 a.m., I located the subject vehicle, eastbound on County Road 2, approximately 200 metres west of the County Road 4 roundabout. I attempted to conduct a traffic stop, at which point the vehicle drove on the wrong way in the roundabout. I attempted to conduct a traffic stop, at which point the vehicle drove on the wrong was in the roundabout from the west side of the roundabout, travelled across the lane, and onto the northbound lane. The vehicle drove across both lanes, hit two signs, and continued north on County Road 4 at a high rate of speed.
I initiated a pursuit North bund on County Road 4, south of the 401, speeds of the pursuit were approximately 150km/h. Subject vehicle was weaving within his lane, passing vehicles while going over blind turns and around blind corners, moving onto the shoulder, and driving in a dangerous manner.
The vehicle passed the 401, continued north on county Road 4, where vehicle speeds reached in excess of 165 km/h.
A T.D.D. was deployed by PC Lavery, the TDD was effective, the vehicle began to lose speed. The left tires were exuding smoke, and pieces of rubber were coming off. The vehicle lost speed, until it came to a slow roll, at which point it moved to the right shoulder in front of 2369 County Road 4, where the vehicle then descended into the ditch, and came to a stop in the ditch/front lawn of the house.
I exited the vehicle and identified myself as a Police Officer, at which point the male driver exited the vehicle and fled on foot east into the backyard of the home. As the male fled, he was screaming, “they’re trying to kill me,” “they’re trying to torture me.” I was concerned for the driver’s condition. I initiated a foot pursuit and apprehended the suspect approximately 50 metres from the road in the back yard of 2369 County Road 4.
As I was talking to the male he was physically and visibly agitated, he Was sweating profusely, be somewhat confused and delusional, he appeared to be confused and delusional as he was talking very quickly, following multiple trains of thought that didn’t make sense. The majority of his speech was focused on the freemen on the land attempting to capture, kill, and torture him, I assured the male that I wasn’t there to hurt him, I was there to assist him.
At approximately 9:47 a.m., as the male calmed, I allowed him to have a cigarette, at which point I them advised him that he was under arrest for flight from police, and possession of a stolen vehicle. I handcuffed the male to the rear. PC Maschi then searched the male. Where a small baggy was located in his wallet, which he identified as meth. Male admitted to consuming meth within the last 48 hours.
At 9:47 a.m., I advised that the male was under arrest for flight from police, possession of stolen vehicle, impaired driving, dangerous driving, possession of a Schedule 1 substance.
I then place the accused in the cruise, and at 9:56 am., he was read his rights to counsel from the card. When asked do you understand, he responded, “Yes.” When asked do you want to speak with a lawyer, he responded, “Yes.”
At 9:58 a.m., he was read his caution from the card. When asked, do you understand, he responded, “Yes.”
In speaking with the male, I had determined that driver, the accused, was likely impaired while operating his vehicle, and I read the drug recognition expert demand. When asked do you understand, he responded, “Yes.”
At approximately 10:00 a.m., I departed the scene for L&A County Detachment and at 10:15 a.m., we arrived at the L&A County Detachment.
At 10:17 am., I read the accused his rights to counsel form the cell wall again. When asked do you understand, he responded, “Yes.” When asked, do you want to speak with a lawyer, he responded, “Yes, DILLON.”
At approximately 10:31 a.m., I contacted Kingston Police Force, and notified them that Bateman has been arrested.
At 11:31 a.m., duty counsel returned the call, spoke with Bateman. The lawyer that had called, was MAZGAREAN.
At 11:36 a.m., Bateman completed his discussion with duty counsel. Advised myself and PC Porritt that duty counsel told him he could speak with John Dillon, even though police had already attempted to contact him, with negative results.
At 11:37 a.m., I allowed Bateman to attempt to contact John Dillon. There was no answer.
At 11:42 a.m., PC Porritt then printed off Dillon’s phone number from the internet, provided it to Bateman, at which point he then contacted Dillon’s office, and at 11:44 a.m., Bateman hung up the phone with his attorney, Dillon. Bateman was returned to his cell.”
Criminal History:
- Mr. Bateman’s criminal record contains convictions for taking a motor vehicle without consent, assault, theft of a motor vehicle, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
Background History:
Mr. Bateman’s personal background and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated in detail in these Reasons
Briefly, as summarized in last year’s Reasons, Mr. Bateman, now 40 years of age, was born in British Columbia and grew up in Peterborough, Ontario. He reported that his parents separated and reunited several times in his childhood before permanently separating, and that during separations, he lived primarily with his father and saw his mother “once in a while.” Mr. Bateman had three sisters and one brother; however, he reported that when he was approximately 9 years old, one of his younger sisters died from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Mr. Bateman reported that his parents used corporal punishment on a weekly basis when he was growing up and recalled being hit with belts and extension cords. He also recalled his parents being critical and making rejecting comments on a weekly basis. Mr. Bateman reported that there was often tension in the home and attributed this to his parents’ drinking.
Mr. Bateman reported that he graduated from high school and began working in a factory. At this time, he began a six-year relationship and had a son. After working at the factory for two years, Mr. Bateman’s girlfriend ended their relationship and moved away with their son. Mr. Bateman reported that at this time, he became quite depressed and quit his job and has not worked since this time. His second relationship lasted approximately two years. Mr. Bateman reported that this partner was the person who introduced him to methamphetamine and the relationship ultimately deteriorated because of their heavy drug use.
Mr. Bateman reported some cannabis use in high school but stopped using it in his early twenties. File information noted that Mr. Bateman developed opiate dependence in his early twenties following a knee injury that resulted in a prescription for opiates. He has reportedly been on methadone since 2013/2014. As mentioned above, Mr. Bateman reported that his ex-girlfriend introduced him to methamphetamine approximately six years ago and since this time, he has reportedly used it regularly. Mr. Bateman reported that the exception to this was a period of approximately 10-12 months in 2018 when he was able to remain abstinent. In December 2018, he began using methamphetamine regularly again.
Mr. Bateman’s first psychiatric admission was in August 2013. He was brought to Kingston General Hospital (“KGH”) on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) of Ontario after police found him in someone else’s apartment. At that time, he reportedly expressed paranoid ideation and was concerned someone was following him. He had damaged the apartment and was in possession of crystal methamphetamine. Mr. Bateman was diagnosed with drug-induced psychosis and was discharged from KGH the next day. The following week, he was readmitted to KGH after being found in his shared apartment with many knives and expressing paranoid ideation. He was discharged from hospital 2-3 days later.
Mr. Bateman was admitted to KGH again in November 2014 and April 2015 and was discharged with a diagnosis of drug-induced psychosis. In August 2015, he was admitted after his brother brought him to the hospital out of concern. This time, he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and his medications were adjusted.
Mr. Bateman has been under the Board’s jurisdiction since his NCR verdict on his index offences on October 3, 2019. He has remained on a Detention Order Disposition at PCH and, prior to his current ROL status, he lived in the community at the Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program (“TRHP”), a 24-hour transitional supportive housing program in Kingston, since May 29, 2023.
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. Bateman’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and Opioid Use Disorder – in remission, on maintenance therapy (methadone).
Evidence at the Hearing:
As noted in the Hospital Report, Mr. Bateman is a person with a long history of psychosis which began in the context of crystal meth use but continued and led to a diagnosis of Schizophrenia made more than a decade ago and which continues to this time.
Mr. Bateman also has a history of significant substance use (opioids) which had led to him also being diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder, now in remission with treatment.
In the last reporting period, Mr. Bateman was unfortunately not able to sustain uninterrupted living in Kingston’s TRHP, unlike in the previous year. Mr. Bateman has been readmitted to the PCH Forensic Inpatient Program on three occasions as detailed in the Hospital Report. He currently remains as an inpatient, although he does enjoy leaves of absence from the ward.
Plans to transition Mr. Bateman back to the TRHP facility have been suspended due to Mr. Bateman presenting with symptoms typical of his relapse signature. The primary reason for Mr. Bateman’s readmissions is acute anxiety/distress secondary to paranoid delusions.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Bateman’s behavioural response has most often been an attempt to avoid the threat. However, of significant concern of serious risky behaviour is the fact that he had twice been found to have placed knives around his living space in apparent response to perceived threats. It is of further concern that he demonstrated violence against property at another time he was feeling under threat.
The Hospital Report states that Mr. Bateman’s current risk factors, not unlike those determined to exist following Mr. Bateman’s previous Psychological Risk Assessment from last year, continue to include his major mental illness, history of violence, history of non-compliance with supervision and treatment, and history of substance use.
During the previous year’s assessment, it was noted that Mr. Bateman’s beliefs regarding being followed (and/or beliefs that he would be kidnapped or killed) by the Illuminati, Freemasons or even community members were present leading up to incidents of Mr. Bateman’s physical aggression and risky driving practices. Mr. Bateman experienced intense fear in response to these delusional beliefs, which prompted him to take steps to protect himself.
The Hospital Report adds that these observations remain prescient during the current reporting period given the nature of risky behaviours Mr. Bateman has demonstrated in the last 12 months and their triggers.
However, to his credit, Mr. Bateman neither used the weapons he kept, nor did he commit any other interpersonal violence. Also, it is noted that Mr. Bateman is generally perceived by the treatment team as friendly, despite whatever paranoid concerns he may have at times about his interlocutor, and is willing to engage.
The Hospital Report concludes by opining that Mr. Bateman remains a significant threat to the safety of the public as there is a risk of serious physical and psychological harm occurring to individuals in the community from conduct that is criminal in nature. This might include physical or psychological harm resulting from Mr. Bateman keeping knives in close proximity, as well as Mr. Bateman’s psychopathology of having intense urges to escape from perceived threat parallels that which was described occurring during the commission of the index offences.
In his oral testimony at the hearing, Dr. Bickle advised he has been Mr. Bateman’s treating psychiatrist for the last year. Dr. Bickle was a co-author of the Hospital Report and adopted its contents.
At the time of the hearing, Dr. Bickle confirmed that Mr. Bateman remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. In describing the factors which supported this opinion, Dr. Bickle testified that Mr. Bateman began experiencing psychosis approximately a decade ago following his use of crystal methamphetamine, which was subsequently more definitively determined to be diagnosed as the underlying mental illness of schizophrenia.
According to Dr. Bickle, Mr. Bateman currently presents with an elevated level of symptoms of his mental health condition, with him experiencing the recurrence of various paranoid delusions and hallucinations. Mr. Bateman continues to believe he is being persecuted by the Illuminati, Freemasons or even community members leading to his responses of physical aggression and risky driving practices. Mr. Bateman experiences intense fear in response to these delusional beliefs, which either prompt him to take steps to protect himself or flee from such delusionally perceived threats.
According to Dr. Bickle, one of the examples of Mr. Bateman’s responses in his psychotic state was him choosing to keep a knife in his living space. Mr. Bateman justified his conduct to TRHP staff by indicating that he kept the knife for protection believing that people might come through the walls to attack him.
Dr. Bickle also testified that, as an alternative concern for Mr. Bateman’s risk, when Mr. Bateman becomes anxious and paranoid, he wishes to escape that situation at all cost, which Dr. Bickle noted was Mr. Bateman’s similar psychopathology he presented during the commission of his index offences.
Dr. Bickle noted, however, that Mr. Bateman had not repeated any of these concerning behaviours during this past year’s reporting period, primarily due to him being under the structure of the Board’s Detention Order conditions which has ensured the necessary and appropriate protections. For those reasons, Dr. Bickle continues to opine that Mr. Bateman remains a significant threat to the safety of the public as there is a risk of serious physical and psychological harm occurring to individuals in the community from Mr. Bateman’s conduct that is criminal in nature.
Dr. Bickle testified that Mr. Bateman has been compliant with his prescribed medication regimen throughout the past year. However, Dr. Bickle indicated that he would be looking at Mr. Bateman’s medication regimen in the coming year, noting that Mr. Bateman’s prescribed clozapine levels seem relatively high, possibly creating unnecessary side-effects, leading the doctor to be disinclined to increase the dosage of that particular medication. Dr. Bickle stated that he would be reviewing Mr. Bateman’s medication strategy with the input of the hospital’s pharmacist.
Dr. Bickle explained that Mr. Bateman’s numerous admissions to hospital in the past year was due primarily to Mr. Bateman experiencing his chronic delusions, with increased levels of paranoia and feeling persecuted, all of which was observed by concerned TRHP staff members. Mr. Bateman was finally readmitted (and remains an inpatient) at PCH since August 20, 2025, after it was determined that Mr. Bateman was feeling more paranoid, persecuted, and agitated. He punched a wall a few times to the TRHP facility. He was also distressed by a number of matters, including the death (by suicide) of his brother, and other concerns, leading to Mr. Bateman expressing the thought that, if others found themselves in his situation, they would be inclined commit suicide.
When asked how Mr. Bateman was doing while in hospital, Dr. Bickle described it as a variable situation. Mr. Bateman has engaged with Dr. Bickle and the treatment team members to undertake his treatment plan. He has reduced his need for PRN medications. Efforts have been made to have Mr. Bateman return to the TRHP facility (where his accommodation continues to be held for his return), with him being granted leaves from hospital, but which are sometimes suspended given Mr. Bateman’s level of paranoia. As an example, Mr. Bateman believed in unfounded and illogical conspiracies. As a further example, while on a trip with TRHP staff to a park location, Mr. Bateman became very paranoid that he might be abducted after hearing the lyrics of a song being sung by a staff member.
Given these concerns, in the past 3 to 4 weeks, the approach with Mr. Bateman is to have him doing things more gradually. He is being accompanied by only one staff member to determine how is he feeling during each particular leave opportunity. According to Dr. Bickle, the TRHP staff are a key factor in ensuring a reduction in Mr. Bateman’s risk both to himself and others. At present, according to Dr. Bickle, the TRHP staff are indicating that Mr. Bateman is not mentally ready to return to the TRHP facility on a more permanent basis. Nevertheless, Dr. Bickle and the hospital continue to support the request that the Board’s Disposition permit Mr. Bateman the ability to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Dr. Bickle testified that the goal was to move Mr. Bateman back to TRHP and living in the community, but the approach to do so would be slow and gradual, mindful of Mr. Bateman’s ongoing risk to the public, and recognizing that as his paranoia increases, so does his risk to public safety – with Dr. Bickle agreeing that there is a link between these two concerns.
The same approach has also been undertaken concerning the granting of Mr. Bateman’s privileges. They had been suspended, but as recently as ten days ago, Mr. Bateman has been allowed community access in the company of a staff member.
In response to questions posed by Mr. Scott, on behalf of the Attorney General, Dr. Bickle was asked what needed to be accomplished by Mr. Bateman before considering his return to the TRHP facility. In response, Dr. Bickle indicated that, while there was no concrete timetable for Mr. Bateman’s return to TRHP, there needed to be observable improvements in the symptoms of Mr. Bateman’s mental health condition, with reductions in the level of his paranoia. Mr. Bateman would also be expected to have good engagement with the staff about his mental state. He would also need to successfully complete any leaves of absence, whether to the TRHP setting or elsewhere, coupled with the redevelopment of a supportive relationship with staff. Dr. Bickle added that Mr. Bateman also needed to make improvements to his living space at TRHP so that it would be kept less untidy.
Dr. Bickle reported that there were two incidents that involved Mr. Bickle being in possession of a knife while residing at TRHP, the February 2025 incident, as well as an incident in May 2025. In February, Mr. Bateman admitted to being in possession based on his delusional belief that it was needed for his self-protection; in May, the knife was once again kept by him due to his delusional beliefs and discovered by staff. It was Dr. Bickle’s opinion that it was unlikely that Mr. Bateman would normally possess weapons, but it is his paranoia that influenced his beliefs and conduct.
In response to questions posed by Mr. Rodé, Mr. Bateman’s counsel, Dr. Bickle testified that all of Mr. Bateman’s regular toxicology screening results are negative.
Given Mr. Bateman’s medical condition of sleep apnea, Dr. Bickle was asked about the two episodes in the past year when Mr. Bateman’s CPAP machinery’s face mask was incorrectly connected to Mr. Bateman leading to needed hospitalization as a result of him suffering from hypoxia. Dr. Bickle agreed that those events, leading to Mr. Bateman experiencing low levels of oxygen in his body, could have been a cause of his paranoia in February 2025.
According to Dr. Bickle, Mr. Bateman’s paranoia continues to fluctuate at the present time.
Dr. Bickle was hopeful, with input from the hospital’s pharmacist, to adjust Mr. Bateman’s medication regimen.
In response to questions posed by some panel members, Dr. Bickle testified that Mr. Bateman’s anticipated future returning residency at TRHP was not in jeopardy despite his current lengthy admission.
To mitigate Mr. Bateman’s future need for hospitalization, in order to avoid a repeat of his three admissions in 2025, Dr. Bickle indicated that efforts would be made to optimize Mr. Bateman’s treatment, with anticipated medication adjustments, as well as ongoing psychotherapy efforts, according to Dr. Bickle as also being an important part of Mr. Bateman’s treatment. In particular, it is planned that the hospital psychologist will gradually expose Mr. Bateman to the most salient features of his paranoia about Freemans, etc.
Dr. Bickle was unaware as to how long Mr. Bateman had kept a knife in his living space at the TRHP facility but agreed that his behaviour in that regard was a breach of his ORB Disposition.
By possessing a knife to justify Mr. Bateman’s delusional belief of his need for a weapon for self-protection by scaring-off others as a deterrent, Dr. Bickle agreed that this behaviour exhibited a level of contemplation.
When questioned about the results concerning the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide – Revised (VRAG-R), the actuarial measure of Mr. Bateman’s risk of violent recidivism, Dr. Bickle acknowledged that the contents of the current Hospital Report (at page 32) do not note, in particular, Mr. Bateman’s PCL-R score, a score which is the result of a 20-item checklist used to assess psychopathy in adults, with scores ranging from 0 to 40, with a higher score indicative of a greater degree of psychopathic traits. Dr. Bickle agreed the results of PCL-R scoring would be the predominant factor is assessing the violent risk tendencies of an individual such as Mr. Bateman’s. Dr. Bickle agreed that this oversight needed to be corrected, undertaking that next year’s Hospital Report needed to include those important scoring results.
Dr. Bickle noted that Mr. Bateman’s diagnosed mental health condition of schizophrenia currently presents as treatment resistant.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Final Submissions of the Parties:
After hearing the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties maintained their respective positions, as stated earlier in these Reasons, that Mr. Bateman’s ROL was justified both when first implemented and with its current continuation, as well as Mr. Bateman’s continued significant threat to public safety warranting the continuation of Mr. Bateman’s Detention Order Disposition.
The parties noted that Mr. Bateman is doing everything he can and is doing everything asked of him at the hospital at present to help reduce his risk to public safety. However, given the various incidents involving his knife possessions while experiencing delusional beliefs of a paranoid nature, Mr. Bateman continues to present with symptoms not dissimilar to what he was experiencing at the time of commission of his very serious index offences. With the public’s safety as the paramount consideration, the treatment team and hospital hope to optimize Mr. Bateman’s treatment using a well-managed and graduated approach with the goal to eventually have Mr. Bateman return to the TRHP community living setting.
Analysis and Conclusions:
ROL:
The panel of the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Bateman’s restriction of liberty was warranted on August 20, 2025, when it began, as well as for its duration up to the time of the hearing, it being the decision of the panel that this ROL was the least onerous and least restrictive alternative in the circumstances. There was a necessary justification for his re-admission given his level of mental decompensation as determined by Dr. Bickle following Mr. Bateman’s mental health assessment and various incidents involving his knife possessions while experiencing delusional beliefs of a paranoid nature.
The Board agrees with Dr. Bickle's opinion that there exists a number of ongoing factors leading to this conclusion, including the fact that Mr. Bateman suffers from a major mental illness, the psychotic disorder of schizophrenia. His presentation is complicated by also being diagnosed with Opioid Use Disorder (in remission, on maintenance therapy (methadone). Given Mr. Bateman’s clinical history, the limitations in his insight into his illness, his presentation of feeling angry, anxious and suspicious of others, he required a more secure forensic unit to ensure the safety of both himself and others.
Accordingly, the Board accepts the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Bickle that Mr. Bateman’s decline in mental status resulted in a situation where it was necessary and appropriate to readmit him to the Hospital on August 20, 2025. His return to the Hospital was necessary for assessment and stabilization purposes and to consider whether to adjust his prescribed medication regimen, a work-in-progress decision. His ongoing detention in the Hospital continued to be warranted while he was being stabilized. Accordingly, the Board finds that Mr. Bateman’s return to the Hospital was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention when it was initially imposed, and it remained so throughout its duration.
The Board also agrees that, at present, while Mr. Bateman has demonstrated compliance with his medication regimen, a further medication optimization is a goal to be achieved by Mr. Bateman with Dr. Bickle’s guidance. Mr. Bateman nevertheless presents with a fragile mental state and a lack of sufficient insight which mandate the need for the current level of supervision to adequately manage his risks to himself and others. It is expected that Mr. Bateman will be able to be risk managed on a less secure setting again within the foreseeable year, with the hope that he can be transferred to the TRHP facility. Until then, it is the opinion of the treatment team that he requires a more secure setting.
In the circumstances, the Board finds that Mr. Bateman’s restriction of liberty was (and is) warranted, is the least onerous and least restrictive to ensure the safety of Mr. Bateman and others, and that all appropriate steps have been taken and completed.
Significant Risk and Disposition:
Mindful that the parties offer a joint position on the appropriate finding of Mr. Bateman’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. Bickle, amply supports a finding that Mr. Bateman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
The Board notes, not unlike last year’s panel’s findings, that Mr. Bateman’s most relevant factors include a major mental illness, a history of non-compliance with supervision and conditions of his ORB Disposition, and previous substance use.
Mr. Bateman’s illness can be exacerbated by substance use. His history also notes that he can present with persecutory symptoms characterized by delusional beliefs about being followed, kidnapped, or killed by the Illuminati, Free Masons, or community members. Fueled by these delusional beliefs, Mr. Bateman is prompted to take actions to protect himself or flee from perceived dangerous situations without regard for how his behaviour might affect others or put others at risk of harm.
Mr. Bateman’s index offences involve risky driving to flee a perceived threatening situation, thereby putting himself and members of the public at risk. It is noted that Mr. Bateman’s conduct at that time included driving at a high rate of speed (some 140 to 165 km/hr.) on the wrong side of the road, weaving within his lane of travel, and passing a vehicle on a blind corner. It resulted in a police chase and using a tire-deflating device to slow down Mr. Bateman’s vehicle in order to apprehend him.
Additionally, the panel notes that there is historical evidence demonstrating Mr. Bateman’s potential for committing other acts of violence beyond his driving conduct, particularly when Mr. Bateman believes, due to his chronic delusions, that his life is in danger. In the past, Mr. Bateman assaulted a cab driver to gain control of a vehicle and flee a perceived threatening situation.
Furthermore, there is other historical information suggesting that, in some circumstances, Mr. Bateman’s beliefs have prompted him to acquire weapons (i.e. knives) for self-protection.
Mr. Bateman’s mental state can also worsen when he is under stress. He continues to experience unresolved persecutory delusions.
Mr. Bateman also has a history of non-compliance with his prescribed medication regimen, as well as a history of challenges with his therapeutic engagements.
On a positive note, over the reporting period, Mr. Bateman’s antipsychotic treatment, therapeutic alliance with his treatment team, psychotherapy sessions with the psychologist, and abstinence from illicit substances, have all contributed to managing his behaviour and controlling the intensity of his delusions.
If Mr. Bateman were to reoffend, it would flow from active symptoms of mental illness precipitated by substance use, non-compliance with medication and/or stress. Given his ongoing residual symptoms and the impact of potential stressors on his mental health, Mr. Bateman currently requires continued hospitalization, and the support provided by his forensic team to manage his risk.
The Board looks forward to next year’s Hospital Report including the results of Mr. Bateman’s PCL-R score as the predominant factor is assessing the violent risk tendencies of Mr. Bateman as part of his Violence Risk Appraisal Guide – Revised (VRAG-R) testing results.
Although not requested, a Conditional Discharge Disposition would be insufficient to manage Mr. Bateman’s risk given that he continues to experience residual symptoms and requires staff support to help him with medication adherence. We also note he has a history of not following court orders and operating a motor vehicle while under a driving prohibition. On two previous admissions, after being made voluntary, he left the hospital against medical advice. It is, therefore, unlikely that Mr. Bateman would return to the hospital voluntarily should he deteriorate or that the MHA would be sufficient to manage his risk.
The Board agrees with the parties that Mr. Bateman continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. Throughout the current reporting period, Mr. Bateman continued to experience symptoms of his major mental illness. Mr. Bateman’s mental state remains fragile and vulnerable to external and internal factors. Mr. Bateman needs to achieve improved sustainable stability in his mental state. Furthermore, the Board notes that there remains several issues surrounding Mr. Bateman’s treatment plan that need to be addressed and hopefully resolved given the current therapeutic standstill, including what is the necessary and appropriate treatment plan, whether there is a need for medication adjustments or changes (in that regard, it is hoped that Mr. Bateman will offer his acceptance of medication interventions and changes in his treatment regimen), Mr. Bateman’s need for staff support to help with medication compliance, and whether placement at the TRHP facility in the community should and would occur (noting that Mr. Bateman has had issues in the past when placed in the TRHP, as well as the need for ROLs and re-hospitalizations while living in the community). Until then, the Board agrees with the unanimous opinion of Dr. Bickle and the other treatment team members that Mr. Bateman continues to pose a significant threat of significant harm to the public on account of his mental health condition.
Having reached the conclusion that Mr. Bateman continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, the Board must determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage his risk for the next reporting year. In this Board’s opinion, in order to safely manage Mr. Bateman’s risk to public safety, Mr. Bateman requires a renewal of his Detention Order. Further, should he progress to being ready for discharge to the community, the Hospital requires the ongoing authority of a Detention Order for two critical risk management reasons. Firstly, the hospital must continue to have the ability to approve his housing to ensure that it provides him with the necessary support, structure, and supervision to manage his risk factors. The second risk management tool that a Detention Order affords is that it allows the Hospital to intervene at a very early juncture to act expeditiously should Mr. Bateman show signs of a decompensation in his mental status (whether because of medication non-compliance, relapse to substance use, or otherwise).
For all the reasons referred to above, the Board supports the recommendation of the parties and finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that Mr. Bateman be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of Providence Care Hospital with the various conditions as set out in the formal Disposition.
In making our decision, the panel has reviewed the provisions of ss. 672.54 and 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and has carefully considered the paramount need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Bateman’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
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