Re: G.E.L.
ORB File No: 6361
Hearing held on: Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill
Dr. G. Stones
Ms. J. Mills
Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: G.E.L.
Counsel: Ms. C. Whillier
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 15, 2025)
Introduction
On June 18, 2013, G.E.L. was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of attempt murder, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon (x3), aggravated assault, assault with a weapon (x2), and forcible confinement (x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. G.E.L. is currently subject to a conditional discharge disposition dated November 28, 2024. Among others, it contains conditions that he supply samples of his urine and breath for the purpose of analyzing whether he has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicants; advise the person in charge in advance of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more; and on his consent agree to take medication and treatment as prescribed by a psychiatrist or as directed by the person in charge at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, or his or her designate in accordance with s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.
On November 25, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at Waypoint to review his disposition. Mr. G.E.L. was present and represented by counsel, Ms. Whillier.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence are as follows:
“The accused in this matter is G.E.L., 47 years old, DOB: 08 November 1965.
The victims in this matter are the accused’s mother, J.D.M.L., 77 years of age, and the accused’s uncle, A.L., 87 years of age.
The accused resides with his mother at Unit 502, [street address], North Bay. The accused’s uncle resides in the same building in Unit 107.
The accused has been unemployed and has accumulated a debt with his mother in excess of $5,000.00. His mother encouraged the accused to gain employment; however, the accused remained unemployed.
On 17 March 2013 at approximately 8:45 p.m., the accused was in Apartment 502 with his mother. He attended the bathroom and remained inside for some time. The victim began to inquire about his well-being. The accused exited the bathroom, pushed the victim from the bathroom to her bedroom, knocking her onto the bed. The accused used strings from a bass guitar and an amplifier cord to bind her hands to the headboard. The victim asked what he was doing, to which he replied, “You will soon find out” and “I will pay you back in pain”. The accused also stated, “It’s a new world”. The accused took a towel, rolled it up and placed it in the victim’s mouth to muffle her screams.
Between 17 March 2013 and the early morning hours of 18 March 2013, the accused attended the victim’s bedroom with his toolbox where she remained bound to the bed. The accused proceeded to make three superficial horizontal cuts on her upper torso using a knife. He then made horizontal cuts down the length of her body and onto her legs that were also superficial.
The accused heated a curling iron belonging to the victim and inserted the curling iron into the victim’s vagina several times. He then inserted it into her rectum, causing severe burns to both the victim’s vagina and rectum.
The accused removed the shade off of a night table lamp, which was turned on and while hot, placed the candescent light bulb on the victim’s right rib cage area, causing further burns.
The accused disassembled his bass guitar and removed the neck from the guitar. The accused inserted the neck of the guitar into the victim’s vagina and then into her rectum.
The accused retrieved a pair of pliers from his tool kit and proceeded to cut or pull off the victim’s right nipple. Once removed, the accused ate the nipple.
The accused attempted to remove the victim’s fingernails and toenails with a knife by making deep lacerations below the cuticles. During his attempts to remove her fingernails, the victim’s right pinkie finger was nearly amputated.
The accused used several knives to cut a piece of flesh, approximately 4” X 5”, from her right buttock. The accused proceeded to the kitchen where he washed and rinsed the piece of flesh and placed it on a kitchen plate. He consumed two portions of the flesh.
During the early morning hours of 18 March 2013, the accused left his mother bound on the bed in pain and distress and attended his uncle’s apartment at Unit 107. The accused entered the apartment with keys he had retrieved from his mother’s apartment.
The accused attended A.L.’s bedroom where A.L. was sleeping. The accused got on top of A.L.’s chest and, with his weight, was able to restrain him. The accused bound A.L.’s hands to the bedroom furniture with an electrical cord and a strap.
The accused stated, “It’s a new world” and proceeded to make three horizontal cuts across A.L.’s upper torso with a knife. The accused then left A.L. bound on his bed and returned to J.D.M.L.’s apartment, where he continued further assaults on her.
The accused became concerned that his Uncle A.L. would free himself and returned to A.L.’s apartment. He attended the bedroom where he observed that A.L. had freed himself. The accused attended the kitchen where A.L. was standing with a knife in hand to defend himself, fearing the accused would return.
The accused lunged towards A.L. A.L. feared for his safety and stabbed the accused in the chest. The accused fell to the ground. A.L., still fearing for his safety, remained a distance away from the accused and tossed the accused a portable telephone to contact ambulance.
Ambulance and police responded, and an investigation commenced. The accused told police to check on the well-being of his mother in Apartment 502. Police found J.D.M.L. bound by her wrists face down on her bed and in medical distress.
The accused and the two victims were transported to North Bay Regional Health Center for medical attention.
While at the North Bay Regional Health Center, the accused was arrested, read his rights to counsel and cautioned. The accused declined his opportunity to speak with counsel and provided an inculpatory statement, stating he did not wish to harm his uncle, but he did not feel the same for his mother. He intended on making her a sacrifice and ending her life. ”
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing was comprised of the Hospital Report dated October 22, 2025, Exhibit 1, and the testimony of Dr. Ismail.
Initial Positions
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Ms. Newman, on behalf of the hospital, indicated the hospital’s position is that Mr. G.E.L. continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the hospital was recommending a continuation of his conditional discharge with the additional condition that permits him travel up to seven days within Canada with the itinerary approved by the treatment team.
Ms. Curry, on behalf of the Crown, indicated the Crown’s position; that she joined the hospital with respect only to significant threat. The Crown’s position with respect to disposition was to seek a detention order that allowed for community living. She noted this was based on the Crown’s concern regarding Mr. G.E.L.'s recent cannabis use and his potential for destabilization and it would allow for his ready return to hospital, if necessary. She took no position on a clause with respect to travel.
Ms. Whillier, on behalf of Mr. G.E.L., indicated her client was seeking an absolute discharge. If the Board did not agree then he was in agreement with the hospital proposed conditional discharge including the seven day pass.
Background Information
Mr. G.E.L. is presently 60 years of age. Prior to the index offence, which took place when he was age 47, he had no psychiatric history nor any criminal record. Mr. G.E.L. had a significant history of cannabis use beginning at age 16. He smoked up to six to eight joints daily for eighteen years up to the index offence but indicated that he did not smoke on the day of the index offence.
Mr. G.E.L. improved quickly after admission into hospital as a result of medication. He expressed remorse for the index offences and ultimately was able to reconnect with his mother up until the time of her death and with his sister.
Mr. G.E.L.’s diagnoses include schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder and atypical depression disorder.
In 2019, having been transferred to the Brébeuf unit, Mr. G.E.L. was, in light of his progress, granted community living. It was at that time reported that he had good insight into his medication management. This changed, however, when he stopped taking his medication in 2022. Of note he had breakthrough symptoms in 2019. He deteriorated quickly in 2022 after stopping his medication. He had indicated that he stopped taking his oral medication in 2022 because he did not have the structure to take them. He indicated that he needs routine in order to take them and felt there had not been enough structure at his Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program (TRHP) housing.
In July 2022 medication monitoring was initiated after he stopped his medication. This was reduced in May of 2023 and stopped altogether in August 2024. During that time Mr. G.E.L. had expressed that he wished to change to oral medication, but he listened to his doctor’s advice and stayed on injectable antipsychotic medication. In January 2025, his injectable haloperidone medication was changed to an oral dosing. It is reported that he has shown good compliance with his oral medication to the date of the hearing
Mr. G.E.L. graduated from the TRHP housing and moved to his current residence at Weber House in February 2024. Weber House offers a transition period of up to four years and after such time he can request permanent housing. Mr. G.E.L. has three years left on his housing with Weber House and can, if needed, obtain an extension.
He daily checks in with the TRHP office. He is engaged in social activities and peer support for persons who are new admissions to TRHP and Dr, Ismail indicated that he hopes to use the skills he is developing through TRHP to assist him in finding permanent employment and the treatment team is helping him look for work. Mr. G.E.L. in the past year has had family visits with his sisters on many occasions, including a sister with whom he had not had contact with since of time of the index offences. In the past treatment year, he got a puppy, whom he takes good care of. He has had no psychotic symptoms evident in the course of the past year.
Mr. G.E.L. had agreed with his treatment providers that there was no amount of marijuana use that was safe for his use. Despite this, he engaged in the use of marijuana through edible gummies in the past treatment year, the details of which will be further set out in the testimony of Dr. Ismail. He had asked acquaintances for the gummies. He indicated he just wanted to see what it was like. He had previously indicated to his treatment providers in 2024 that he missed using cannabis because he liked the ‘high’. He later expressed remorse for the recent use and said it would not happen again. Mr. G.E.L. returned the two remaining pieces of gummies to a CMHA worker. He said that it would not happen again and that he had no further craving and did not want to use anymore. The ingestion of the marijuana gummies caused no observable change by his treatment providers to Mr. G.E.L.’s mental state.
Testimony of Dr. Ismail
Dr. Ismail testified that he bases his opinion of significant threat on the risk assessment as set out in the Hospital Report at pages 106 to 108. The Hospital Report sets out that Mr. G.E.L.'s risk to the public safety is mitigated only through ongoing structure, supervision, and medication adherence. It expresses a concern regarding his use in the past year wherein he minimized the role of cannabis in the context of his index offence. He has not engaged in any substance abuse treatment nor any cognitive behavioural therapy. He has expressed that he thinks because he did not use cannabis on the day of the index offences that is not an issue.
Dr. Ismail indicated that Mr. G.E.L. has had pretty good years in this and last year but unfortunately, he disclosed eventually to a CMHA counselor that he was using some marijuana gummies. This was not one incident of use but took place on multiple occasions. He had a piece of 500 milligrams of THC which he broke into eight pieces. He consumed six of these over a three-week period. Dr. Ismail stated that is one reason why an absolute discharge is not appropriate to manage Mr. G.E.L.’s risk. Dr. Ismail noted that with respect to edible cannabis the rate of onset is much slower than when smoking THC. For that reason, sometimes people take a small amount, and feeling no immediate effect, then take more. There is no control with respect to dosing. Further, edible THC is converted more potently than leaf cannabis. Marijuana smoke goes into the lungs, the blood and then the brain. Edible is converted into nitrate hydroxy which is more potent than leaf. Mr. G.E.L. did not disclose his use when he met with the treatment providers. No change in his mental status was noted. He saw the CMHA counselor but did not disclose to that person He did disclose his use eventually to his addiction counselor. He explained that someone gave him the marijuana and then said that he asked for it. He wanted to see what happened. This causes concerns, Dr. Ismail testified.
Dr. Ismail indicated that Mr. G.E.L. has pretty good insight with respect to his illness and is capable with respect to medication, but it remains an issue. An ongoing issue is to try and get him into a concurrent disorder group with respect to substance his use. Mr. G.E.L. will say that he did a lot of that when he was on Brébeuf in 2020, but he has not done any since. Mr. G.E.L. has very poor insight into his substance use issues and how it affects his risk. Dr. Ismail stressed that he still feels that Mr. G.E.L. requires addiction support, something such as getting into a support group like Narcotics Anonymous that he testified is helpful because it becomes part of one’s life moving forward. Dr. Ismail testified that Mr. G.E.L. has done CBT for psychosis in the past but has not engaged in any psychotherapy since leaving the Brébeuf Program in 2020.
Dr. Ismail indicated that Mr. G.E.L. agrees that he has a mental illness and that he requires medication for life.
At the time of the index offences, Mr. Leblong had spoken to his sister who found nothing that he said or in his voice that suggested anything would happen. His mother also did not pick up any signs or symptoms of his illness. Mr. G.E.L. had indicated, when taken to the hospital in North Bay, that the voices had come on suddenly. They appeared on the date that he committed the index offences. Dr. Ismail testified that he thinks, going forward, any decompensation signs would also be of a subtle nature. When asked how that can be protected, Dr. Ismail indicated that this is through the people that provide support to Mr. G.E.L. and the frequency of the support that he receives. He felt that his treatment providers, including his CMHA worker, would be in a position to notice a decompensation.
He testified that he feels the travel restriction is required because Mr. G.E.L. is on oral medication. The team wants to be in a position to encourage him to take medications with him when he travels and take them on time. Dr. Ismail has concerns as some persons will make impulsive travel decisions. Having an itinerary will allow the hospital to know what Mr. G.E.L.’s travel plans are. He indicates he wants to visit his sister, and the treatment team would support that type of travel but not travel such as to a music festival.
If Mr. G.E.L. was granted an absolute discharge as he requests, he would have regular mobile treatment support team (MTST) support, which is Waypoint’s version of an ACCT team. They would take over his care. He would be able to remain in his current residence and get ongoing medications without issue. There is a psychiatrist as part of that team who could treat Mr. G.E.L.
Dr. Ismail agreed that the index offences were horrific. Mr. G.E.L. had indicated that he intended to kill his mother. The mental health episode happened suddenly and without warning. Having smoked marijuana to the extent that he was, it would have absolutely had an impact on his behaviour even though he did not consume any on the date of the actual offence. Were his symptoms to recur, they could be very subtle. That is why he needs ongoing monitoring by trained mental health staff. Urine screens are necessary to show if he is using marijuana. Mr. G.E.L. had maintained, up until this year, that he would not use marijuana. He has always denied having any craving for doing so. The gummie form is more of a risk to destabilize his mental health than smoking. Surprisingly, the urinalysis testing after his use of gummies did not disclose any THC.
It was after Mr. G.E.L. had suddenly stopped taking his medications in 2022 without telling anyone that he was put on injectable antipsychotic medication. Dr. Ismail has for the past two years had ongoing discussions with Mr. G.E.L. regarding medication as Mr. G.E.L. has wanted to get off the injectable form of medication. The treatment team indicated to him that their rationale for his remaining on same was that it is a safety net to stopping his symptoms. Mr. G.E.L. does not agree with that. In July of 2022, he reported that four weeks before he had missed some doses and then stopped his oral medications for two weeks. Another benefit of the injections that were then started is that the effect of the medication stays in the body longer than oral medication. Mr. G.E.L. is also diagnosed with major depression with psychiatric features. His mood is a factor in his risk. One of the medications that he stopped taking in 2022 was his antidepressant, which increased his risk. When his anti-depressive medication sertraline was discontinued in 2020, Mr. G.E.L.’s mood quickly changed, and he quickly became more agitated and irritable and less engaged with staff. He reluctantly agreed to restart the medication and continues to be prescribed that medication.
Dr. Ismail discussed why the injectable antipsychotic medication was changed to oral Haldol. Mr. G.E.L. is capable and so gives consent to taking medication. The team was worried that if they insisted on his staying on injectable medication that he would stop agreeing to take medication. Mr. G.E.L. has said that he understands that he needs to take medication for the rest of his life. It was notable that a year later he stopped taking that medication. He showed a rapid deterioration when he stopped taking his medication in 2022. He had also indicated in 2021 that he planned to abstain from substance use.
Dr. Ismail testified that Mr. G.E.L. should take cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for psychosis. He testified that Mr. G.E.L. is not in remission with respect to his cannabis use disorder that he has concerns with respect to his insight level. He agreed that Mr. G.E.L., when he met with his mobile team nurse in August despite his three weeks of cannabis use, said that he was doing everything that the Board asked of him and was requesting an absolute discharge. He did so knowing that he had consumed the cannabis.
If granted a conditional discharge the only method by which Mr. G.E.L. could be brought back to hospital is through the Mental Health Act form. Given how suddenly his risk could elevate, Dr. Ismail did not feel that that was necessarily sufficient time to get him into hospital.
In response to questions from Ms. Whillier, Dr. Ismail agreed that Mr. G.E.L. is seen by clinicians but indicated that nothing in his mental status was noticed that would allow the team to bring him in for assessment or treatment. He did not think that Mr. G.E.L. would be receptive to coming in at his request but would likely say that he has no symptoms, hears no voices, his mood is fine, and he has no delusions. If he were to suddenly have symptoms, on his current basis of being seen not less than every two weeks there would not be sufficient time to intervene. He does, however, see a TRHP worker regularly. He lives at Weber House which is across the street from TRHP and attends there for programming and volunteering. If TRHP staff had a concern they would reach out to the treatment team. They are social workers and RPNs and so trained treatment providers. If he stopped attending at the TRHP, Dr. Ismail testified they would advise staff at the hospital.
Dr. Ismail testified that Mr. G.E.L.’s compliance with oral medication is evidenced by urine tests both for his antipsychotic medication and Haldol. He has been quite compliant with his medication. He has not said he wants to discontinue taking the medications and experiences no side effects from them.
When asked if a community treatment order (CTO) would be of assistance if Mr. G.E.L. were granted an absolute discharge, Dr. Ishmael opined that Mr. G.E.L. would not meet the criteria for a CTO which would require either that he had been on the CTO before or had a certain amount of time in hospital within the past two years.
When asked if the team has been in touch with the sister whom Mr. G.E.L. indicates he would like to visit in Quebec, Dr. Ismail said they had not and that the team want to be involved to help him plan his trip, know where he would go and with whom he would stay. If the team was not involved in approving his pass, Dr. Ismail said that Mr. G.E.L. still might indicate to them what his plan was. Dr. Ismail was asked about Mr. G.E.L.’s 72-hour visits to a friend’s house in the past year and acknowledged that Mr. G.E.L. does inform the team when he is planning such visits. He sees his sister in North Bay regularly. Dr. Ismail did not know whether she had contact with their other sister in Quebec. He indicated that we would need to find out if a sister in Quebec wanted him to visit. From what the hospital knows, they understand that Mr. G.E.L. has had increased contact with family and has now reached the point where he wishes to have visits with them.
Dr. Ismail agreed with the hospital assessment that Mr. G.E.L.'s risk is high if granted an absolute discharge. He has some insight into his illness and need for treatment but not with respect to his substance use and does not have insight into how substance use plays a role in increasing his risk for violence. He is at high risk if he stopped taking medication, of rapid decompensation, including both his antipsychotic and his antidepression medications. Given he is on an oral medication, it is highly likely that such decompensation would be very quick.
If remaining on a conditional discharge, the hospital is at least able to see him frequently, obtain urine samples and provide support. If he showed symptoms, they would be able to rehospitalize him.
Mr. G.E.L. has expressed to the treatment team that he wants greater independence and wants an absolute discharge because he sees their visits as intrusive. He has been subject to ORB treatment team visits for years and wants to continue taking medications on his own. Dr. Ismail agreed with the suggestion put to him that Mr. G.E.L. is not showing good intentional thinking as reflected in his recent actions. He again said it would be very helpful if Mr. G.E.L.’s attendance for CBT for psychosis could be mandated. He noted additionally, with respect to having a concurrent disorder group, that Waypoint has an excellent virtual program that would be helpful to Mr. G.E.L.
Dr. Ismail expressed that a conditional discharge does not really work well with people who suddenly decompensate. Mr. G.E.L. to date has not decompensate while medication adherent. Under Dr. Ismail’s care he has not quickly decompensated.
At the time of last year’s hearing, the hospital was agreeable to the removal of the abstention clause with respect to cannabis. It is not being recommended to be included at this time in that potentially a one-time slip may not indicate that he will continue his use. Strangely, his urine was tested right after his use and all tests came back negative. The hospital wants to be able to work with Mr. G.E.L. to give him more independence and with supervision, allow him to move forward. Dr. Ismail indicated his personal view is that a condition requiring him to abstain from substance use would be better. He noted further that if relying on the Mental Health Act to return Mr. G.E.L. to hospital in the event of decompensation then it might be necessary to say that he not travel outside the Province of Ontario. Dr. Ismail agreed that Mr. G.E.L. is overconfident in his ability to maintain his wellness without the necessary supervision.
Submissions
Ms. Newman, on behalf of the hospital, maintained her position for a conditional discharge. She noted that Mr. G.E.L. is not someone with numerous hospitalizations or criminal history prior to an index offence, which makes this a unique case for Waypoint. He had one significant psychotic episode which came on suddenly without detection and the severity of it cannot be ignored. That is why there is a lot of concern. Mr. G.E.L.’s remaining a significant threat is heightened this year due to the poor insight he showed with respect to substance use. He always denied cravings but repeatedly used for a period of three weeks. He had at the same time said he wanted an absolute discharge and had done all that was required of him. The team did not ask for a substance abuse clause because they want to maintain a rapport with him. It is important that he can disclose the use if he does use. His use was limited to a three-week period and there were no positive urines. The hospital deferred to the Board whether an abstinence clause is necessary to be included in the disposition.
Mr. G.E.L. has made gains in the past year. He has been more engaged with his clinical team, active at TRHP and has positive relationships with his sisters. He has been compliant with his oral medication and Ms. Newman commended him for that. However, he remains a significant threat and needs ongoing monitoring and support. The hospital is asking that there be oversight for Mr. G.E.L.'s intended travel to ensure his medication compliance and reminder about substance use during travel. For this reason, they suggested a condition that he remain in the province except for seven days of travel in Canada that is first approved by the hospital with respect to his itinerary. This will allow for the hospital's involvement in planning any such visit; however, she deferred to the Board with respect to the legality on a conditional discharge of such a provision.
Ms. Curry, on behalf of the Crown, maintained her position that a detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition but with a residence clause that allowed Mr. G.E.L. to continue living at Weber House. On a detention order if he decompensated, he could be brought back right away to hospital. The protection of the public is the paramount consideration, and this would be necessary to do so. It is necessary given the major change in his risk since last year when a conditional discharge was agreed to by both the hospital and the Crown. The major change is that he ate gummies over a period of three weeks. On six separate occasions he decided to do so knowing that cannabis can destabilize him and increase his risk of violently offending. Gummies are even more a risk to him for destabilization than smoking marijuana as it stays longer in the system and is more potent on absorption. He did not disclose this to TRHP and in fact lied, saying he should get an absolute discharge because he is doing everything he is supposed to. There was not an abstain clause in his disposition, but he should have known that abstention was necessary for him. It is also a major concern to the Crown that the urine screenings did not show the cannabis from his use. She noted that the index offence illustrates the rapid onset of Mr. G.E.L.’s psychosis, and it was horrific. With that history, relying on the Mental Health Act to return him to hospital, especially after consuming marijuana, is not sufficient as his return would be too late to protect the public. She noted that if he is on a conditional discharge, the Mental Health Act is Ontario law which does not apply outside of Ontario. If he is granted a conditional discharge by the Review Board, she asked that it contain an abstention clause which will be a reminder to him not to consume cannabis and that travel passes must be approved. She noted that passes would be to visit his family who are the people most likely at risk, given that is who he lived with at the time of the index offence.
Ms. Whillier, on behalf of Mr. G.E.L., submitted that Mr. G.E.L. attends the hearing and seriously listens to the evidence. He is committed to moving forward. He continues to seek an absolute discharge. However, if the Board finds a significant threat has been made out then he agrees with the conditional discharge as proposed by the hospital. She noted with respect to travel that Mr. G.E.L. has worked with his team to inform them when he is out of his residence in the past year and discusses his itinerary with them. He did so when he went to a friend’s house on Halloween. She submitted that travel would be sufficiently covered under the current provision that he notify them when he is out of his home for more than 24 hours in that he informs the team, comes up with a plan with them and obtains their approval. She submitted that Mr. G.E.L. is committed to not using substances. He recognizes that it was not smart of him to do so. He disclosed his use and discarded the remaining pieces. Ms. Whillier conceded that a conditional discharge may be the necessary and appropriate disposition, but it need not contain an abstention clause as that would not be the least onerous and least restrictive given his commitment to abstention.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board finds on the evidence before us that Mr. G.E.L. remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. A significant part of this is the horrific nature of the index offence. His psychosis came on suddenly without warning. His substance use, on the evidence, played a role, despite his not using on the actual date of the offence. We rely on the risk assessment as set out in the Hospital Report that Mr. G.E.L.’s risk to the public safety is mitigated only through ongoing structure, supervision, and medication adherence
Mr. G.E.L.’s risk has increased since the time of last year's hearing based on his recent use of cannabis over an extended period of three weeks. This was despite his having maintained his commitment to not using cannabis. He also was not forthright about his use until he finally admitted it to his CMHA worker.
For the reasons that follow we find that a detention order is not necessary and appropriate at this time and that Mr. G.E.L.’s risk can be managed on a conditional discharge that contains a clause that requires he abstain from substance use, including cannabis.
Cannabis is a known risk factor for Mr. G.E.L. His prior statements of not intending to use any cannabis have not prevented him from a three-week period of usage of gummies. The gummies, as per the evidence, are even of greater concern than smoking cannabis. It is necessary that Mr. G.E.L. abstain from cannabis and in light of his use and his lack of forthrightness with respect to that use, an abstention clause in the disposition is in our view necessary to support his ongoing abstention. The abstention clause is put in also in recognition that he is no longer on a long-acting injectable medication which is a protective factor.
We recognize that a conditional discharge only permits Mr. G.E.L. to be returned to the hospital for assessment or treatment if he provides his consent, or otherwise not immediately. We also consider his rapid decompensation after he stopped taking oral medication in the past and the rapid onset without warning of his psychosis leading to the index offence. It is our view on all the evidence that if Mr. G.E.L. abstains absolutely from the use of cannabis and is also fully compliant with medication then the provisions of a conditional discharge will be sufficient to manage his present risk.
We commend Mr. G.E.L. for his ongoing compliance with oral medication and working with his treatment team. At this time Mr. G.E.L. is subject to regular supervision both from his treatment team and through his connection with the TRHP. In that way if there was any sign of decompensation it would be noticed. While Mr. G.E.L. has been compliant with his oral medication for the last nine months, in the Board’s view, it would be better if he had remained on injectable medication as this would provide a greater foundation to his maintaining stable mental health. We understand that the treatment team wants to maintain a good rapport with Mr. G.E.L. At the same time, we hope that he will listen to their advice and reconsider injectable medication moving forward. His goal, as expressed this year, is to receive an absolute discharge.
It is the position of the Board that Mr. G.E.L. must be prohibited from travel outside the province of Ontario. The Mental Health Act does not operate outside the province of Ontario. We have no evidence before us that his sister in Quebec wishes him to visit Quebec and have no information as to what such a visit might entail or what mental health services would be available to him should he require them.
For these reasons we order a continuation of a conditional discharge with the added conditions that Mr. G.E.L. abstain from the use of substances including cannabis and that he be prohibited from travel outside the Province of Ontario.
We make this disposition in consideration of the primary factor of protection of the public, Mr. G.E.L.’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 15th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Fromstein
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board