Re: Darcy Dénommé
ORB File No: 5272
Hearing held on: Thursday, July 24, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann
Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. G. Kerry Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Darcy Dénommé Counsel: Mr. A. McIver
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 11, 2025)
Please see underline change to original reason made December 11, 2025.
Introduction
On February 4, 2009, Darcy Dénommé was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of mischief not exceeding five thousand dollars, failure to comply with probation order (x4), flight from police, theft exceeding five thousand dollars, operation of motor vehicle while disqualified and possession of property obtained by crime, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code").
Mr. Dénommé is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated September 5, 2024, ordering him detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus. It was further ordered that until such time as he is detained at the St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHH”), the person in charge of the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care create a program for the detention in custody and rehabilitation of the accused within the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, with privileges up to and including hospital and grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.
On July 24, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB” or the “Board”) convened a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Dénommé was in attendance and represented by his counsel, Mr. T.J. McIver.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
- Ms. Barney recommended that Mr. Dénommé be found a significant threat to the safety of the public and advised that the Hospital was seeking no change to Mr. Dénommé’s current detention Disposition dated September 5, 2024, save with additional privileges as set out in the Hospital Report at p. 73:
(a) Passes for up to seven (7) days to enter the community within Southern Ontario, indirectly supervised;
(b) To live in the community within the catchment area of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton in accommodation approved by the person in charge, and
(c) While living in the community, report to the person in charge of SJHH not less than once per week.
Ms. McKenzie, on behalf of the Attorney General, supported the Hospital’s position but said she would like to ask some questions regarding the privilege of living in the community.
Mr. McIver, on behalf of Mr. Dénommé, invited the Board to find that Mr. Dénommé no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public and was therefore entitled to an absolute discharge. If Mr. Dénommé were found to pose a significant threat, he would like to attend a family wedding in Sudbury, Ontario on August 24, 2025, indirectly supervised and to have permission to work outside of Hamilton.
Background and Index Offences
Mr. Dénommé is 39 years of age. He has been under the Board’s jurisdiction for over 15 years. The Hospital Report dated June 13, 2025, which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing, contains considerable detail regarding Mr. Dénommé’s personal, legal and extensive psychiatric history which need not be repeated here. Of note is his criminal record, which contains convictions for criminal and violent acts, his substance abuse and fluctuant mental status, as well as his progress while under the jurisdiction of the Board.
Briefly, Mr. Dénommé’s criminal history began in 2000 at age 14. Between 2002 and the Index Offences in 2008, he was convicted of numerous criminal offences including theft, assault, uttering threats, driving while impaired, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, mischief, and multiple breaches of, and/or failures to comply with, probation. While under the Board’s jurisdiction, in various hospitals since 2009, he has often damaged hospital property and been physically and verbally aggressive with staff. His transfer to Waypoint in December 2022 followed immediately upon his incarceration at Central North Correctional Centre (“CNCC”) resulting from utter threats charges laid against him in mid-October 2022 while he was detained at North Bay Regional Health Centre (“NBRHC”). Mr. Dénommé also has a long history of serious substance abuse. Starting at age 9, he used cannabis, crack, cocaine, psilocybin, ecstasy as well as alcohol. Periodically from the age of 14 he received treatment for suicidal ideation. From early 2006 until the commission of the Index Offences in 2008, he was admitted to, and received treatment, from several hospitals for paranoia, suicidal ideation and auditory hallucinations.
Following his NCR finding, Mr. Dénommé’s risk was initially managed at NBRHC from February 2009 to October 2018 when he was transferred to Waypoint due to violent and disruptive behaviour. After seven months of relatively stable behavior in the high secure setting at Waypoint, he was transferred to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores) where he remained from February 2020 to December 2021. His increasingly aggressive and threatening behavior there coupled with a number of positive tests for substances, resulted in Ontario Shores requesting his transfer to NBRHC, which occurred on September 7, 2022. However, within six weeks of his arrival at NBRHC, Mr. Dénommé was arrested, charged, and incarcerated at CNCC as noted above.
The circumstances of the Index Offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated October 4, 2024, as follows:
Count 1 - Flight from Police
On the 26th day of October 2008, Darcy Dénommé was northbound on Lakeshore Rd in New Liskeard operating a 2001Chevrolet Impala bearing On marker “[…]” Linda Chouinard, the vehicles owner reported to the police that the vehicle had just been stolen by Darcy Dénommé and was believed to be northbound from Cobalt. Officers located the vehicle on Lakeshore Rd and followed the vehicle for approx. 2-3 kilometre with activated emergency lights and sirens. Officers also pulled beside the vehicle driven by Dénommé to ensure that he saw police attempting to stop his vehicle. The vehicle was subsequently stopped as officers managed to direct the vehicle into a field where the suspect vehicle was unable to drive any further.
Count 2 – Theft Over Sec 334(a) CCC
On the 26th day of October 2008, Darcy Dénommé received transportation to N[…] St in Cobalt by his mother Linda Chouinard from New Liskeard. Dénommé was at the residence a short period of time and managed to take Choulnard’s vehicle keys from her jacket located in the living room. Dénommé was observed entering into Chouinard’s 2001 Chevrolet Impala bearing ON marker “[…],” Dénommé started the vehicle and removed it from the driveway travelling towards Haileybury. Chouinard indicated that Dénommé was not given any permission with using her vehicle.
Count 3 – Breach Probation
On the 20th day of February 2008, Darcy Dénommé was placed on probation by the Honourable Madam Justice M.J. Rocheleau for a period of 12 months with the following condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. On the 26th day of October 2008, Darcy Dénommé was in contravention of this condition by stealing hos mother’s 2001 Chevrolet impala.
Count 4 – Breach Probation
On the 23rd of July 2008, Darcy Dénommé was placed on probation by the Honourable Madam Justice M.J. Rocheleau for a period of 12 months with the condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. On the 26th day of October 2008, Darcy Dénommé was in contravention of this order by stealing his mother’s 2001 Chevrolet Impala towards new Liskeard and failing to stop for police when directed.
Count 5 – Drive Disqualified
On the 23rd of July 2008, Darcy Dénommé was placed on a Prohibition Order as a result of a Criminal Code offence by the Honourable Madam Justice M. J. Rocheleau for a period of one year. Darcy Dénommé was in contravention of this order by operating a 2001 Chevrolet Impala on Lakeshore Rd in the Town of New Liskeard.
Current Diagnoses
(a) Schizophrenia,
(b) Amphetamine-Type Substance Use Disorder (in remission in a controlled environment)
(c) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,
(d) Antisocial Personality Disorder (by history).
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. J. Ferencz, Mr. Dénommé’s treating psychiatrist, testified on behalf of the Hospital. He confirmed having both read and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report.
Dr. Ferencz provided an overview of Mr. Dénommé’s progress since his admission to SJHH from Waypoint on April 3, 2025.
Dr. Ferencz described Mr. Dénommé’s clinical course as largely unremarkable. The doctor described Mr. Dénommé as having been mentally stable for “quite some time, for years, in fact”. The doctor noted that Mr. Dénommé has not posed any behavioural difficulties, or symptoms in the last couple of years and that this stability was the reason for his transfer from Waypoint to SJHH. Mr. Ferencz indicated that Mr. Dénommé is pleasant, easy to work with, forthright, and very engaged in a variety of programs. Mr. Dénommé is particularly interested in vocational programming and is keen to work in competitive employment at the earliest opportunity. He has also expressed an openness to rehabilitative support especially for substance abuse.
Mr. Dénommé has very good insight into his illness and the circumstances of his Index Offenses and expresses a high level of commitment to abstaining from substances and to taking his medication. He has been using his passes appropriately. Dr. Ferencz noted there have been no changes to Mr. Dénommé’s medication regimen; he is stable and well and given this, adjusting it would not be prudent.
Next steps in his rehabilitation program are for Mr. Dénommé to participate in programs of interest, especially relapse prevention, and to increase his freedoms, with the goal of developing his ability to live independently. This will involve his exercising indirectly supervised passes into the community and, if he does well, to be transitioned to living in the community. Dr. Ferencz thought this could happen over the course of the coming year, but not in the immediate future. Should the Board grant Mr. Dénommé the privilege of living in the community, he will be placed on waiting lists for approved housing; the sooner this happens, the better, because waiting lists for such accommodations are lengthy.
As for the issue of significant threat, Dr. Ferencz opined that notwithstanding Mr. Dénommé’s very positive progress over the past year, he posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, particularly over the longer term. The Clinical Risk Summary contained at p. 73 of the Hospital Report is as follows:
Notwithstanding his successful transition to St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Mr. Dénommé’s tenure here has been relatively brief, and his level of independent pass utilization has been limited. His ability to maintain his current level of successful functioning remains to be determined. Furthermore, despite negative urine drug tests to this point, his ability to abstain from substances also remains to be seen. It is the opinion of the treatment team that he will benefit from ongoing support in this regard. Consequently, it is our opinion that Mr. Dénommé continues to pose a
significant threat to the safety of the public at this time and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order.
Dr. Ferencz testified to a number of factors that supported the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Dénommé still poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. Among these factors were that the VRAG assessed Mr. Dénommé as posing a high degree of actuarial risk; that the factors underpinning his HCR-20 score remain valid today; that he has yet to be tested in myriad ways, such as by living independently or even utilizing regular community passes.
Moreover, Dr. Ferencz highlighted Mr. Dénommé’s very lengthy history of substance abuse, and concluded by pointing out that going forward, Mr. Dénommé will be granted increased liberties that he does not have at present, and it is unclear how he will cope with the temptations that come with those increased liberties.
Dr. Ferencz opined that, if he were granted an absolute discharge, Mr. Dénommé would likely do well for a brief period of time, but that in the longer term, there was a real likelihood that without the forensic supports he currently benefits from, he would ultimately return to substance use, which in turn, would cause a decompensation in his mental status, a re-emergence of psychotic symptoms and a real risk to the public.
In response to questions from the Crown Attorney, Dr. Ferencz confirmed that Mr. Dénommé does not have any non-forensic community-based supports in place to support him if granted an absolute discharge, nor does he have a community-based psychiatrist or family doctor at this time.
In support of his position that he no longer posed a significant threat, Mr. Dénommé shared with the Board his progress and his earnest desire to continue with medication and to remain abstinent from drugs. He also expressed his appreciation of the care he has received, as well as his plans if he were to receive an absolute discharge. He hoped to continue working with the doctor to develop a treatment plan once he was discharged from hospital.
Mr. Dénommé conceded in questioning by the Panel that he has not lived in the community without forensic supports since 2008, and that he agrees that the reason he has been doing so well over the past few years is because of the intensive support and accountability provided by the forensic team.
Similarly, he conceded that he would likely have difficulties in securing housing without the support of the forensic team, given his lack of tenant history and his criminal record. He agreed that he did not have a non-forensic physician or psychiatrist in the community to take over his care at present.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Ferencz agreed that Mr. Dénommé does not have a community living arrangement in place and that he would likely require group living accommodation but would not require 24 hour supervision.
Dr. Ferencz testified that all of Mr. Dénommé’s medications are oral and are administered to him by St. Joseph’s – in short, it does not appear that while under the auspices of the ORB Mr. Dénommé has ever been responsible for his own medication administration.
Dr. Ferencz remains concerned about medication compliance on a less restrictive disposition because of these factors, combined with the fact that Mr. Dénommé has a history of medication non-compliance, and that his current medication regime is quite complex, requiring multiple medications to be taken throughout the day at various times. Dr. Ferencz is not convinced that Mr. Dénommé can take his medications properly without supervision and oversight.
Lastly, on the issue of Mr. Dénommé’s requests for permission to attend a wedding in Sudbury and to work outside the catchment area of SJHH, Dr. Ferencz stated that he did not object to either request.
Dr. Ferencz explained that there is a therapeutic benefit to granting upper-level privileges – even if the accused does not achieve them right away – because it is highly motivating and because Mr. Dénommé is not the type of patient that will insist on being granted the highest levels of privileges available to him. He has consistently stated that he will do what is required to earn them, and thus far has done so.
Analysis and Disposition – Legal Framework:
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Dénommé continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Analysis and Disposition – Significant Threat
Having heard and considered all of the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Dénommé continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board accepts in their entirety and relies upon the clinical, psychological and actuarial risk assessments contained at pp 63 – 68 and 73 of the Hospital Report. Mr. Dénommé’s risk flows from his diagnoses of schizophrenia, amphetamine-type substance use disorder in remission in a controlled environment, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and antisocial personality disorder by history, as well as his vulnerability to relapse in his mental state. When the symptoms of his major mental illness are active, whether through the ordinary course of his illness structure or external factors such as medication non-compliance, substance use, stress, or inadequate support, he loses insight into his condition and becomes highly aggressive, reverting to the state of mind that gave rise to his Index Offences, which were criminal and serious.
In arriving at this determination, the Board carefully considered the excellent progress Mr. Dénommé has made, particularly during the latter part of his admission at Waypoint and currently at SJHH, for which he deserves much credit. The Board listened very carefully to Mr. Dénommé’s oral evidence and paid particular attention to Mr. Dénommé’s commitment to seeking a community-based psychiatrist for treatment and follow-up, intention to stay on anti-psychotic medication and to remain abstinent from substances, his desire to obtain competitive employment and a place to live as well as attributing the progress he has made in his recovery to the help and support he has received. In his evidence before the Board, he gave a good account of himself. His mental stability, clarity of thought and sincerity were evident throughout.
However, the Board is mindful of Mr. Dénommé’s behaviour since the Index Offences shows a strong correlation between mental decompensation, substance use and highly aggressive behaviour, punctuated by lengthy periods of stability wherein he is pleasant, adherent to medication and engaged in treatment and rehabilitation. Since 2018, Mr. Dénommé has demonstrated a pattern of stabilizing once in the high secure setting of Waypoint but destabilizing in medium secure settings when he has less structure, support and supervision as well as access to substances. When decompensated and under the influence of substances of abuse, he becomes highly aggressive and difficult to manage.
Mr. Dénommé is currently at a similar inflection point as in the past; that is, recently arrived at a medium secure setting, doing well initially, but just beginning to move ahead into uncharted waters. His history strongly suggests that he is especially vulnerable to decompensation currently, particularly as he begins the process of re-integrating into the community which in the past has not gone well for the safety of the public or himself. Given the recency of his admission to SJHH, his ability to maintain stability and remain abstinent from substances has not yet been assessed and his participation in programming, particularly relapse prevention support, is a work in progress. On the record before it, the Board has no hesitation in finding that Mr. Dénommé poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Analysis and Disposition – Form of Order
Having found that Mr. Dénommé poses a significant threat, the Board must fashion a disposition order for the coming year that is necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive and which meets his rehabilitative, reintegrative and other needs. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Dénommé’s needs, and the other factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Dénommé provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In view of how well Mr. Dénommé has been doing, the Board gave serious deliberation to whether a conditional discharge disposition would address his risk to public safety and his care and concluded that it could not. The civil commitment provisions of the Mental Health Act are retrospective in nature. The Hospital needs the ability to intervene quickly, decisively and proactively if Mr. Dénommé shows incipient signs of mental decompensation and/or substance use.
Mr. Dénommé has not lived independently since the Index Offences and previous attempts to reintegrate him into the community have been unsuccessful and associated with increased physical, verbal and environmental aggression, substance use, guardedness and outright deception with clinical staff. Elopement was an issue as well. In these circumstances, the Board finds there is no air of reality to a conditional discharge and that the safety of the public is best ensured by a detention disposition order at this time.
In reflecting on the necessary and appropriate disposition order for the coming year, the Board considered, as well, that Mr. Dénommé’s plan upon discharge is to stay with his mother in the North Bay area while he arranges psychiatric care and accommodations in Hamilton. Mr. Dénommé admitted that he has not lived in the community without hospital support or involvement since 2008. He thought that his mother would be willing to offer him a place to stay but had not been in touch with her about that yet. Mr. Dénommé’s mother was the victim of the Index Offences and also the predicate offense forming the basis for the breach of probation charges upon which he was also found NCR.
Mr. Dénommé has not yet granted the treatment team consent to speak with his family and told his team’s social worker that he prefers to provide his mother with updates around treatment and recovery as he does not want his mother involved in his care (p. 72). The Hospital Report notes that historically, his relationship with her has been strained. It is therefore important for the treatment team to assess Mr. Dénommé’s relationship with his mother prior to his being released to the community to potentially stay in her home. Her consent to the arrangement is not known nor is her understanding of Mr. Dénommé’s mental illness, including at a minimum early warning signs of decompensation.
It may be that over the course of the coming year, Mr. Dénommé may see fit to allow the treatment team to share details regarding his psychiatric condition, treatment and recovery. If so, the treatment team can then explore her understanding of his mental illness, her support for his need for medication, her knowledge of the forensic system and the appropriateness of his living with her. This assessment would, of necessity, include whether doing so would be risk-enhancing or risk-mitigating to the safety of the public, of which his mother is a member.
For now, the Board grants Mr. Dénommé the privilege of residing in the community within the catchment area of SJHH, in accommodation approved by the person in charge. The Board declines to grant Mr. Dénommé the privilege of working outside Hamilton. While the Board views Mr. Dénommé’s desire to return to the paid workforce a very laudable goal indeed, on the evidence before it, such a privilege is premature. It is always open to the Hospital to bring an early review of the disposition order if circumstances evolve in such a way that permitting Mr. Dénommé to reside with his mother or work outside of Hamilton become viable propositions.
At the hearing, Mr. Dénommé had voiced a desire to return to Sudbury area for a family wedding. Dr. Ferencz was not opposed and thought it might be able to be arranged. Given Mr. Dénommé’s level of stability, engagement in treatment, and overall good progress, the Board deems it appropriate to add to his disposition order the privilege of up to 7 day passes to enter the community of Ontario, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge, upon provision of an approved itinerary. The safety of the public will be ensured by the presence of staff, or a person approved by the person in charge.
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Dénommé poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a continuation of his current disposition with the addition of privileges as recommended by SJHH and a set out above.
The Board wishes Mr. Dénommé continued success in his progress over the coming year.
In coming to this conclusion, the Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Dénommé’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 11th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. T. Mann Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board