Ontario Review Board
Re: Dominic Bercier
ORB File No: 8855
Hearing held on: Monday, November 3, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. P. Hageraats
Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dominic Bercier
Counsel: Mr. W. Murray
Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. J. Hwang
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 11, 2025)
Introduction
On August 29, 2025, the accused, Dominic Bercier, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of criminal harassment, repeatedly communicate and fail to comply with undertaking, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time of the finding of NCR, the Honourable Court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.
On November 3, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Mr. Bercier’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Bercier attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Will Murray. Mr. Bercier’s father was also present.
At the outset of the hearing the following documents were entered as Exhibits:
Release Order dated August 29, 2025
Charge Sheet (x2)
Criminal Record Correspondence
Transcript dated August 29, 2025
NCR Report dated August 14, 2025
Clerk Package
Hospital Report dated October 30, 2025
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Bercier represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate, and least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage the risk.
The parties were canvassed as to their preliminary positions for this hearing at which time the hearing panel was presented with a joint submission of all parties that Mr. Bercier meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a detention order with permission to reside in the community in approved accommodation is the necessary and appropriate disposition. The joint submission was maintained at the conclusion of the hearing.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Bercier represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order with the conditions as outlined in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these Reasons, is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are set out in detail in the hospital report and can be summarized as follows:
Over a period of approximately 3.5 years, Mr. Bercier repeatedly contacted his ex-girlfriend, L.M., despite her clear and repeated requests to stop. He sent at least fifteen emails, with indications that more messages were deleted by the victim due to their persistent nature. In July 2022, after L.M.’s father instructed him to cease communication, Mr. Bercier acknowledged the request but continued sending lengthy emails professing love and asking for reconciliation.
In February 2024, L.M. reiterated her demand for no further contact through any medium. Despite this, Mr. Bercier persisted, and in March 2025, Ottawa Police verbally warned him to stop. He agreed but resumed emailing in April 2025, with increasingly incoherent and emotional messages, causing the victim fear and frustration. On May 7, 2025, police arrested and charged him with harassment by repeated communication; he was released on an undertaking.
On May 26, 2025, Mr. Bercier violated the undertaking by visiting L.M.’s workplace, speaking to her, and then calling the building registrar to request her presence. Police arrested him again for failing to comply with the undertaking. He refused an interview and was held for a bail hearing to prevent further offences and protect the victim.
Background History
Mr. Bercier’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Bercier is 48 years of age and was born in a town north of Alexandria, Ontario where he grew up surrounded by a large extended family. Mr. Bercier’s father was a hunter and worked at CSIS. He drank alcohol excessively and regularly. Mr. Bercier’s parents divorced in 1994, but both his parents remained actively involved in his life. Mr. Bercier’s mother had re-partnered but passed away in September 2024 from cancer. Mr. Bercier has a younger brother who suffers from bipolar disorder.
From an early age, Mr. Bercier was recognized for his artistic talent and illustration drawing. Following his graduation from high school in 1996, Mr. Bercier attended the Ontario College of Art and Design in Toronto and graduated from there in 2002. He worked as a comic book artist assistant being paid less than the minimum wage. After returning to Ottawa, he worked at The Hill Times as a designer but was never able to achieve financial independence.
Mr. Bercier was married to a woman but the relationship did not last. In 2007, Mr. Bercier met Lauren, the victim of the alleged offences, at the Ottawa School of Art and they had a relationship which ended in 2009.
Legal History
- Mr. Bercier has no prior legal history.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Bercier reported that he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder in 2003 and schizophrenia in 2005 at the ROMHC. In 2009 or 2010, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the Ottawa Hospital (TOH). He states having been admitted to hospital fifteen times, with the first admission happening in Toronto in 2002.
In 2020, he requested that his family doctor readjust his medications and tried different antipsychotics. He found atomoxetine (non-psychostimulant treatment for ADHD) helped structure his thoughts and Concerta (psychostimulant) gave him energy and joy. The most recent hospital visit was in March or April 2025, during which his father and brother completed a Form 2. At the hospital, he was assessed by a doctor who renewed his prescription for the antipsychotic olanzapine.
Mr. Bercier’s current diagnoses are:
Schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, multiple episodes, currently in acute episode
Cocaine use disorder, at least moderate severity
Cannabis use disorder, at least moderate severity
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. J. Hwang, who is Mr. Bercier’s attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Hwang confirmed that the hospital requested that Mr. Bercier’s initial hearing be scheduled earlier than anticipated due to recent information obtained primarily from Mr. Bercier’s father which suggested that his son was using increasing amounts of substances and that his mental stability has worsened to the point where he is experiencing significant psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Bercier is currently admitted to the hospital under a Form 3, and he has a CCB hearing scheduled for 3 o’clock on the same day as his ORB initial hearing. Mr. Bercier was admitted to the hospital on October 22, 2025 by way of a Form 1 issued by Dr. M. Strike, who was covering for Dr. Hwang while she was away.
On October 20, 2025, prior to Mr. Bercier’s admission, his father, Ghyslain Bercier, arrived unannounced at the Forensic Outpatient department of the hospital and requested to speak to Dr. Hwang urgently. He informed Dr. Hwang that he was worried that his son was using increasing amounts of substances and that he was aware that he had suddenly used large amounts of money in a short period which he suspected was being used to purchase drugs. Mr. Bercier’s father also indicated that his son had become very aggressive and threatening towards him. He stated that he was no longer comfortable as the surety for his son, given that he had left the home without advising him, contrary to his release conditions.
During Dr. Hwang’s absence, the psychiatrist covering for her, Dr. Strike, had been briefed about Mr. Bercier’s condition. She assessed him on October 21, 2025, and despite her conclusion that he was experiencing psychotic and hypomanic symptoms that were sub optimally managed in the community, he did not meet the criteria for a Form 1. Mr. Bercier was asked to present to the clinic again the next day for a reassessment.
In the interim, the forensic social worker received a call from Mr. Bercier’s father reporting that his son was exhibiting extreme paranoia in the home that he shares with his brother and a roommate and that there were concerns expressed by his roommates regarding potential violence and drug dealers. It was also disclosed that Mr. Bercier had developed a severe cocaine addiction and that this had let to a recent increase in violent behaviour.
When Mr. Bercier attended the Forensic Outpatient Department the next day, at the request of the outpatient team, he was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) on a Form 1 and became quite belligerent, arrogant, rude and threatening litigation. He insisted that his father and brother be prosecuted.
At the time of admission to the FAU, on October 22, 2025, Mr. Bercier denied using substances other than alcohol and cannabis, however the results of a urine drug screen administered that day revealed a test that was positive for benzodiazepines, cocaine, THC, methamphetamine and amphetamine.
Dr. Hwang explained that Mr. Bercier is still exhibiting symptoms of hypomania but is demonstrating somewhat less thought disorganization. He continues to be paranoid and impulsive and is expressing extreme anger against his father and brother.
Mr. Bercier is currently on a Form 3 and will be contesting it at his CCB hearing later this afternoon. The hospital is asking the Board to consider issuing an oral disposition at the end of the hearing in order to prevent a situation where the Form 3 is not upheld and Mr. Bercier would then have to be discharged from the hospital.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Hwang responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Hwang met with Mr. Bercier’s father at the time of the NCR report and has spoken to him twice since then, in addition to a family meeting that was held last week to discuss the situation.
(b) Dr. Hwang was asked whether it was necessary and appropriate to include a non-communication provision between Mr. Bercier and his father such that contact would only be possible with Mr. Bercier Sr.’s revocable consent. Dr. Hwang explained that she was of two minds and that having such a condition might be complicated given that Mr. Bercier Sr. manages the funds received by Mr. Bercier from his mother’s estate and that this could cause issues with Mr. Bercier’s ability to access funds. In addition, Mr. Bercier Sr. is Mr. Bercier’s primary source of support. Dr. Hwang does not disagree that it could be helpful to have a condition that manages the contact, though this is not being requested by the hospital. Dr. Hwang does not believe that a condition limiting him from attending his father or brother’s home is necessary as once Mr. Bercier is able to access community privileges, they will be granted to him based on the assessment of risk at that time.
(c) Dr. Hwang confirmed that Mr. Bercier is currently capable of consenting to treatment but that this could change if his mental status deteriorated.
(d) Mr. Bercier has indicated that he is not willing to go back to meet with Dr. Papsuev who is the community psychiatrist that he had been seeing. Currently, Mr. Bercier has not provided consent for the hospital to speak with Dr. Papsuev.
(e) At this time, the hospital is not concerned with the issue of polypharmacy as the hospital will be assuming control of Mr. Bercier’s prescriptions. In addition, Dr. Côté, will receive a discharge summary when Mr. Bercier is discharged to the community.
(f) Dr. Hwang has no issues with there being a radius in the condition prohibiting contact with the victim of the index offence.
- In response to questions posed to her by counsel for Mr. Bercier, Dr. Hwang testified as follows:
(a) Dr. Hwang agreed that drug use has contributed to Mr. Bercier’s latest mental instability; however, this is not the only issue according to her.
(b) Dr. Hwang agreed that total abstinence will be required for Mr. Bercier to be able to move forward under the ORB.
(c) Dr. Hwang confirmed that Mr. Bercier does not currently have access to cigarettes and to his phone and that those will be available to him only once he is transferred to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU) which his not likely to happen for at least a few months. Mr. Bercier had been given his phone to retrieve information for phone calls, but during that interaction with hospital staff he tried to access other applications on his phone, and it was subsequently removed from him.
(d) Dr. Hwang confirmed that there is currently a waitlist for transfer to the FRU and that Mr. Bercier is not currently on that waitlist. This will be discussed after getting a disposition and when Mr. Bercier’s condition has sufficiently improved for him to be ready to be transferred to the FRU.
- In response to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Hwang responded as follows:
(a) Dr. Hwang acknowledged that the hospital report references Mr. Bercier’s non-compliance with treatment in the past and that specifically he had decided to discontinue treatment at one point but did not want to tell his parents that he was no longer attending for his injections.
(b) Dr. Hwang acknowledged that Mr. Bercier has been living with his brother prior to admission to the hospital but that, currently, the hospital does not consider this to be approved accommodation.
(c) Dr. Hwang was asked to comment on Mr. Bercier’s insight, and she explained that in the reports that she had reviewed Mr. Bercier seemed to demonstrate fairly good insight but that this has decreased in the last few months. Mr. Bercier has also made statements that he is only getting treatment due to the requirements of court orders. This has improved since then but generally, Mr. Bercier demonstrates lack of insight on the symptoms on his illness and the role of cocaine on his symptoms.
(d) Dr. Hwang does not believe that Mr. Bercier is optimally treated at this moment, but the hospital plans on waiting to see how drugs have played a part in that and whether or not Mr. Bercier is able to go back to his baseline. The hospital plans to assess the efficacy of the current treatment regimen and consider whether to increase his medications or switch to another one. Mr. Bercier has a heart condition which limits the use of some medications that are commonly used for patients suffering from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type.
(e) Dr. Hwang confirmed that Mr. Bercier has been attending recreational groups on the FAU but that he has not yet started attending any psychosocial rehabilitation programs, such as concurrent disorders, as he has only been in hospital since October 22nd.
- The hospital’s risk assessment is found on the second last page of the hospital report (the report has no page numbers) and is set out as follows:
“In assessing Mr. Bercier’s risk of future violence, the writer used the HCR-20, version 3, a structured clinical judgment instrument. The writer is of the opinion that Mr. Bercier presents as a high risk of future violence, specifically aggressive behaviour towards his father and brother.
Mr. Bercier’s historical (static) risk factors for violence are as follows:
H1: History of violence – index offence of criminal harassment, attempting violence towards brother and father by strangling or grabbing
H4: History of employment difficulties – difficulty keeping employment although he has received several funding for short-term art projects
H5: History of problems with substance use – long-term cannabis use and frequent cocaine use since 2022
H6: History of problems a major mental disorder – longstanding schizoaffective disorder with multiple mood and psychotic episodes that have escalated since late 2024
H10: History of problems with treatment and supervision response – history of medication non-compliance
Mr. Bercier has the following clinical (current or recent) risk factors:
C1: Recent problems with insight – poor insight into his current psychotic and hypomanic symptoms (speech disorganization, auditory hallucinations, labile affect, impulsivity, flight of ideas); poor insight into the role of cocaine in exacerbating and perpetuating psychotic and manic symptoms and violent attitudes; poor insight into the benefits of antipsychotic treatment; poor insight into his impulsive anger and violent attitudes
C2: Recent problems with violent ideation or intent – recent threats towards father and attempted violence towards brother
C3: Recent problems with symptoms of major mental disorder – ongoing mood and psychotic symptoms as outlined in C1
C4: Recent problems with instability – affective instability exacerbated when discussing his father and restrictions on the unit
Mr. Bercier has the following risk management (future) factors:
R2: Future problems with living situation – Mr. Bercier’s independent living skills are unclear where his father describes him living in a mess surrounded by garbage. In addition, his current living arrangement is with his brother who is often a target of his anger
R4: Future problems with treatment or supervision response – Mr. Bercier becomes easily irritable when his needs are not met. He also dismisses instructions and recommendations from the treatment team such as attending group therapy.
R5: Future problems with stress or coping – Mr. Bercier has limited strategies to cope with stress. He is quick to take short-acting medications to relieve his stress.
When looking at positive features, Mr. Bercier has had a period of stability prior to using cocaine and has exceptional artistic abilities that motivate him to seek employment opportunities and set life goals.
Based on this assessment, the most likely scenario involving risk of violence would be Mr. Bercier’s paranoia towards his father or brother worsening in the context of ongoing acute psychotic and mood episode and impulsively attacking them. This is a highly likely scenario given recent exacerbation of his psychotic and mood episodes that have been perpetuated by suboptimal antipsychotic treatment, psychostimulant treatment, and frequent cocaine and cannabis use. Such risk is currently mitigated by involuntary admission on the Forensic Assessment Unit. However, Mr. Bercier has contested the Form 3, where the Consent and Capacity Board is scheduled to occur on November 3, 2025 at 3 p.m.”
- No other evidence was presented.
Final Submissions of the Parties
The parties maintained their original positions with respect to the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessity and appropriateness of a detention order with community living in approved accommodation.
With respect to a condition including a radius as it pertains to the non-contact provision between Mr. Bercier and the victim of the index offences, counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, submitted that the Board should include a 500-metre radius for Mr. Bercier not to attend the victim’s known place of employment, known place of residence or any where she is known to be. This was not contested by either the hospital or counsel for Mr. Bercier.
With respect to communications between Mr. Bercier and his father, Ms. Dufort requested the addition of a provision that prohibits Mr. Bercier from communicating with his father except with the prior written revocable consent of his father to the treatment team which can be withdrawn by any means, except for communication regarding financial issues in writing only. Dr. Hwang appreciated the possible benefit of having a safety net for Mr. Bercier’s father who has been the target of violence and who is currently the target of Mr. Bercier’s anger, however given Mr. Bercier Sr.’s role as the trustee of Mr. Bercier’s mother’s estate, Dr. Hwang is concerned that these limitations could impact Mr. Bercier’s recovery. Counsel for Mr. Bercier, Mr. Murray, stated that he opposes the addition of such a condition as the hospital is not asking for it and that it is not necessary to manage the risk. Furthermore, Mr. Bercier’s father is not asking for such a condition.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Bercier poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to R. v. Winko, a ‘significant threat to the safety of the public’ means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
Our finding that Mr. Bercier meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is based on the evidence presented at this hearing, both in the hospital report and the oral evidence of Dr. Hwang, which persuades us that without an ORB disposition, and the intensive support and supervision of the hospital, Mr. Bercier would most surely continue to use stimulant drugs, experience further decompensation and disengage from treatment. This would likely lead to further criminal offending similar to Mr. Bercier’s actions at the time of the index offences. It is also noted that with his latest episode of decompensation and drug abuse, Mr. Bercier’s father and roommates reported an increase in aggressive behaviour causing them to be concerned for their physical safety.
Since his admission to hospital, Mr. Bercier has shown some early signs of improvement. It remains very early in his recovery. He remains on the FAU of the hospital and is not yet deemed ready for transfer to the FRU.
Mr. Bercier has a long history of mental illness and non-compliance with treatment and follow-up. It is noted that he has no reported criminal history predating the index offences. His more recent history suggests a dramatic increase in stimulant use and poor insight into the effect of substances on his mental condition. Mr. Bercier will require psychosocial rehabilitative programming to address these issues.
Mr. Bercier had been living with his brother and a roommate. The hospital does not now consider this accommodation to be appropriate due to the risk of violence towards his roommates, apparently due to Mr. Bercier’s out-of-control drug use.
The hearing panel does not consider it necessary and appropriate to include a condition limiting the contact between Mr. Bercier and his father. We find that the hospital is able to manage the contact between Mr. Bercier and his father while Mr. Bercier is in this more acute phase of his illness. Moreover, neither the hospital nor the father is requesting such a condition. Mr. Bercier’s father is an important source of information, support and financial management for his son. Dr. Hwang is concerned that such a condition could interfere with Mr. Bercier’s progress and recovery.
Having considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board finds that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition. The detention order shall include the following terms and conditions:
- While admitted to the inpatient unit in the Integrated Forensics Program at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, that the person in charge, in their discretion, may permit Mr. Bercier:
i. to attend within or outside of the hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal, or compassionate reasons;
ii. hospital and grounds privileges, escorted by staff;
iii. hospital and grounds privileges, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;
iv. hospital and grounds privileges, indirectly supervised;
v. to enter the community of Ottawa, escorted by staff;
vi. to enter the community of Ottawa, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;
vii. to enter the community of Ottawa, indirectly supervised;
Permission to reside in the community in accommodation approved;
When living in the community, report to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre or their designate, not less than once every two weeks;
Abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of any drugs or intoxicants including cannabis and alcohol and provide samples of his urine, breath or saliva to the hospital for the purposes of verifying his abstinence when requested;
Not to possess or own firearms or weapons, including knives except as necessary for cooking, eating, or for any employment purposes, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer; and
Refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect, with Lauren Mullin and do not attend within a 250-metre radius of where she resides, works, or is known to be.
We note that counsel for the Attorney General had proposed a radius of 500 metres for the non-contact provision, but the hearing panel felt that this was excessive in the circumstances and have ordered a 250-metre radius.
The hearing panel delivered its decision orally at the conclusion of the hearing due to Mr. Bercier having a Consent and Capacity Board hearing later that day.
DATED this 11th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Alternate Chairperson
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board