Ontario Review Board
Re: John R. McGhee
ORB File No: 8840
Hearing held on: Tuesday November 4, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario
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 Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: John R. McGhee Counsel: Ms. N. Circelli
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 15, 2025)
Introduction:
On July 09, 2025, Mr. John R. McGhee, who was 52 years old at the time of the hearing, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on the charge of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm contrary to section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The court did not order a disposition at the time of the finding but referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board pursuant to the provisions of section 672.41(1) of the Criminal Code.
On November 4, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (hereinafter referred to as the “Hospital”) to conduct Mr. McGhee’s initial hearing. Mr. McGhee was present assisted by his lawyer, Ms. Circelli. The record for the hearing consisted of the Notice of Hearing and several documents from the underlying criminal proceedings, including the Information pertaining to the index offence, Mr. McGhee’s criminal record, an NCR Report, and the transcript of Mr. McGhee’s plea and NCR hearing. On the consent of all parties a Hospital Report dated September 26, 2025, was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Ms. Zamprogna, lawyer for the Hospital expressed the position that Mr. McGhee represented a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. She further expressed the position that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to manage that threat having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which was the assurance of the safety of the public.
Both Mr. Rows, counsel representing the Attorney General, and Ms. Circelli joined the Hospital on all issues.
For the following reasons, the Board has accepted that joint submission, has concluded that Mr. McGhee continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the detention disposition proposed is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned above and from the live evidence offered by both Dr. Malka, Mr. McGhee’s treating psychiatrist.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it sets out the circumstances of the index offence, Mr. McGhee’s historic struggles with major mental illness, his history of involvement with the criminal justice system, his current diagnoses and his course in the Hospital through to September 2025.
The Index Offence
- The Hospital Report’s summary of the index offence aligns with the facts accepted by the honourable Court at the time of Mr. McGhee’s NCR Hearing:
The accused and the victims - staff of Jade Nails, including employee/witness/victim Trang NGYUEN, are not known to each other.
On January 14, 2025 around 10:50 am the London Police was contacted by an employee of Jade Nails, 25 Oxford Street W, within the City of London complaining of a male in the store that was yelling and screaming at customers and staff and refusing to leave. Upon arrival, Constable ROBERTS of the London Police Service located the accused, Mr. John R. McGhee, and convinced him to leave, advising him not to return.
At 12:04 pm Staff at Jade Nails again contacted Police, advising the accused had returned and was again inside the business, was agitated and was throwing items and breaking property. Constable ROBERTS re-attended and located Mr. McGhee inside the business Jade Nails again. He was arrested and provided with his Rights to counsel and Caution.
During the search incident to arrest a small green blow torch lighter was located in the accused’s front right pocket. Further speaking with the victim Trang NGYUEN, it was learned that Mr. McGhee, while pacing back and forth, removed a lighter from his pocket and started igniting it while stating "I want to burn this…I want to burn them."
As a result, at 12:27 PM, Mr. McGhee was rearrested for uttering threats to cause serious bodily harm or death and Property damage. The accused was again provided with his Rights to Counsel and Caution.
Personal history
Mr. McGhee has a long history of struggles with major mental illness dating back to his time in university when he was first diagnosed with schizophrenia. He has been through multiple periods of hospitalization since 2004 including one period of 141 days during which he was hospitalized with delusions that included a belief that he was being fed fetal tissue at a community soup kitchen and that soup kitchen staff were helping aliens build a secret weapon. He has historically struggled with variable levels of adherence to treatment, decompensations taking place rapidly when he has not been treatment adherent. His symptoms have included mood instability, psychosis, depression, suicidality, aggression and delusions. He has described periods of dissociation and self-harming that has included putting cigarette butts out on his forehead, lighting his beard on fire and submerging his hand in boiling water.
The Hospital Report notes a significant overlap between Mr. McGhee’s psychiatric symptoms and periods of criminal behaviour. His criminal record is lengthy and begins in 1993. Mr. McGhee has multiple convictions for crimes of violence including mischiefs, assaults, assaults with a weapon, arson causing damage to property, uttering threats and assault of a peace officer, as well as multiple convictions for thefts and failures to comply with court orders. The record of convictions demonstrates a history of correlation between Mr. McGhee’s struggles with major mental illness and his commission of serious criminal offences. The probative value of this history of convictions to the issues before this Board made it unnecessary to consider the lengthy list of withdrawn charges that also formed part of the Hospital Report.
The Hospital Report explains that Mr. McGhee has had an extensive history of struggle with use of substances, including alcohol though his use of that substance has decreased since 2018 – largely because of Mr. McGhee’s financial circumstances. He has a long-standing history of use of cannabis, LDS, psilocybin and methamphetamine and has participated in several residential treatment programs over the years. Mr. McGhee’s insight into the substantial impact illicit substances have had on his major mental illness and risk to the public, according to the Hospital Report, is underdeveloped.
Mr. McGhee has limited family supports and reports a history of exposure to multiple adverse traumatic experiences that include childhood victimization, exposure to domestic violence and parental substance abuse and family breakdown. He has described his past relationships, including romantic relationships tearfully and has explained that his childhood environment was chaotic and frightening. He describes a history of being bullied and ostracized in school as a result of his smaller stature. His adult experience has likewise included several forms of relationship trauma, leading to intrusive memories, occasional nightmares, avoidance and reliance on physical pain to ground himself in current experiences.
At the time of the index offence, Mr. McGhee was disorganized, delusional and grandiose. He was easily agitated even after recommencement of pharmacological treatment. He was deemed unpredictable and potentially dangerous while in custody. When moved to the Hospital for assessment and evaluation, Mr. McGhee demonstrated some improvement but was persistently hyperverbal and disorganized. He continued to express delusions but did not exhibit overt paranoia or disorganized behaviour. He remained medication compliant with Hospital supports and attempted to engage socially. His aggressivity decreased but he continued to address traumatic themes and suicidal thoughts. He has had a decrease in the frequency and severity of the primary symptoms of his major mental illness but continues to experience some visual hallucinations notwithstanding his general stabilization.
Current diagnosis
- Mr. McGhee is currently diagnosed with:
- Schizoaffective Disorder, Depressive Type
- Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
- Alcohol use disorder, severe, in sustained remission
- Stimulant use disorder (cocaine and methamphetamine), moderate to severe in sustained remission in a controlled environment
- Cannabis use disorder, mild, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
- Hallucinogen use disorder, in sustained remission.
Risk assessment
The Hospital Report includes a clinical assessment of the risk posed by Mr. McGhee, employing the HCR-20, Version 3 and the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk. These two metrics are commonly used and accepted in the greater scientific community for the purpose of assessing risk in the forensic psychiatric setting and no issue was taken over the course of this hearing regarding the appropriateness of these two batteries or the method of their implementation.
As to protective factors, the SAPROF noted that Mr. McGhee completed high school and some university and presents as highly knowledgeable. He displays kindness towards others and has been medication adherent. His insight into his need for treatment is developing. The HCR-20 notes Mr. McGhee’s history of problems with violence, anti-social behaviour, relationships, employments, substance use, traumatic experiences and history of non-adherence to treatment. While he does not have a history of problems associated with a personality disorder he continues to struggle with global insight. He continues to experience delusions and hallucinations and struggles with cognitive instability. He has no consistent goals and becomes overwhelmed by his emotions. Even in the context of his current adherence to prescribed antipsychotic medications, Mr. McGhee continues to demonstrate the positive symptoms associated with his major mental illness. He is unable to plan services, has no housing and few personal supports. He has a need to develop positive coping skills when stressed. All of these factors contribute to the conclusion contained in Hospital Report that Mr. McGhee presents as a moderate to high risk of violent reoffending, even when under a detention disposition.
The Hospital Report includes a re-offence scenario that is substantially likely when one reviews Mr. McGhee’s history and recent course while in the Hospital. Absent a disposition, he would find himself homeless in the community, would discontinue his treatment and engage in the use of substances. This would cause an increase in psychotic symptoms causing a resurgence of hostility, aggression and violence towards members of the public, exposing them to the risk of significant physical and psychological harm of the nature described in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Dr. Malka’s Update to the Board
Dr. Malka testified to the Board and provided it with a valuable update. She explained that Mr. McGhee’s insight remains partial and that the optimization of his antipsychotic medication is still ongoing. Mr. McGhee is currently treatment adherent with supervision. Absent that oversight, he would cease taking his medications and would experience a deterioration of his major mental illness.
Dr. Malka confirmed ongoing concerns that if Mr. McGhee were to return to a use of substances, he would become noncompliant with treatments and experience rapid decompensation. He has ongoing pharmacological and therapeutic needs that target concurrent disorders and engage him in individual psychotherapy designed to address the multiple traumas that Mr. McGhee has lived that contribute to his ongoing instability. Dr. Malka testified of Mr. McGhee’s strengths as noted above in the SAPROF. She explained that that Mr. McGhee is participating well in programming available to him in the Hospital’s Forensic Assessment Unit and also indicated that he has benefitted from positive visits with his father and some friends from Toronto and Sarnia, Ontario. Dr. Malka indicated that over the next review period, the Hospital would explore whether Mr. McGhee’s father could function as an approved person. She testified that Mr. McGhee presents as quite intelligent. He has expressed interest in concurrent disorders treatment at the Hospital and generally is making positive progress that she hopes to maintain over the course of the next year. She expressed optimism that Mr. McGhee was improving and currently was on a path to wellness. He is kind to patients and staff and is exercising privileges appropriately at this time. Dr. Malka confirmed that, absent a detention disposition with conditions as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. McGhee’s progress would be undermined and he, and the public, would be set at significant threat.
Submissions
- At the end of the hearing, the parties confirmed the joint submission that was presented to the panel at the hearing’s outset. All agreed that Mr. McGhee continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. All agreed that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set forth in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Analysis and conclusion
As stated, the panel agrees with that joint submission. In our view it is amply supported by the evidence.
Turning first to the threshold issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, it is trite to say that this is an onerous consideration the burden of which lies continuously upon the Board to consider even in the context of a joint submission on the issue. A person appearing before the Board never has a burden to establish the absence of significant threat. The threat must be significant both in terms of likelihood of occurrence and in gravity of harm associated with the commission of serious criminal offences.
In the case of Mr. McGhee, the threshold is met by virtue of his historic and ongoing struggles with major mental illness that both featured prominently in his commission of a serious index offence and that is correlated to significant similar offending behaviour as noted in his criminal record. That behaviour included damage to property, aggressive behaviour and the uttering of a threat to commit an arson. It is noted that arson is one of the many offences listed in Mr. McGhee’s criminal record. The risk posed by Mr. McGhee is elevated by virtue of his historic use of substances and pattern of noncompliance with recommended treatment for his major mental illness.
Mr. McGhee continues to experience the symptoms of his major mental illness though treatment compliant and in the Hospital’s highly supportive environment. He still struggles with insight into his mental illness, its symptoms, his need for medication and the risk that his use of substances pose to him and the community. The re-offence scenario included in the Hospital Report and described above is realistic. As a result, the Board has concluded that Mr. McGhee continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Board also agrees that a detention disposition, with the conditions sought by the Hospital and supported by the parties, is necessary and appropriate to manage the risk inherent in the threshold finding. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board firstly considered the primary objective set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code – that of assuring the safety of the public. As noted, Mr. McGhee has a long history of struggle with a major mental illness that has factored into an equally long period of interaction with the criminal justice system. That history has been complicated by protracted periods of decompensating substance use and non-adherence to treatment. In asking itself whether Mr. McGhee’s risk could be managed under a lesser disposition, the Board is convinced that it could not be. Mr. McGhee is still experiencing the primary symptoms of his psychosis and is at risk of rapid deterioration leading to violence similar to that described in the index offence and apparent in his criminal record. It is clear that the Hospital must be able to rapidly respond to Mr. McGhee’s symptoms in order to protect the public from significant risk of harm and that this can only be done under the provisions of a detention disposition.
The detention disposition and conditions being sought also satisfy the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Mr. McGhee requires the Hospital’s support for administration of his anti-psychotic medications and relies on the secure environment offered by the Hospital to support him in abstaining from substances. The Hospital is supporting his reconnection with family, the processing of the traumas he has experienced and, in time, will offer support and direction on the issue of housing. The Hospital’s plan for Mr. McGhee is optimistic and ensures that his mental health and other needs are met, including those associated with the ultimate objective of his reintegration into the community.
For these reasons the Board accepts the joint submission, finds that Mr. McGhee represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition with terms and conditions as set forth in the Hospital Report are necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. An order will issue accordingly.
The Board thanks all who participated in this hearing for their assistance and encourages Mr. McGhee in his progress over the course of the next review period.
DATED this 15th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board