Ontario Review Board
Re: Mark Sheldon Roberts
ORB File No. 6561
Hearing Date: December 11, 2025
Hearing Location: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) Criminal Code of Canada;
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. M. Kalia Mr. A. Mete Mr. K. McKenna
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Mark Sheldon Roberts Counsel: Mr. Anthony Paas
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 22, 2025)
Introduction
Mr. Roberts was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on June 26, 2014, for the criminal code offence of criminal harassment.
He is currently subject to a detention order under a Disposition dated October 28, 2024, which followed an annual hearing at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, High Secure Provincial Forensic Program (Waypoint). This Disposition provides that Mr. Roberts be detained at the Secure Forensic Service, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores). This Disposition also includes privileges that extend to passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community within a 150-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores indirectly supervised.
A panel of the Ontario Review Board (the panel) convened this annual hearing on December 11, 2025, at Ontario Shores to review the current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Roberts attended this hearing with counsel.
Prior to this hearing Ontario Shores sent correspondence to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) advising that Mr. Roberts was requesting a transfer from Ontario Shores to CAMH and that Ontario Shores did not object to the request.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital recommended a continuation of the current Disposition with the exception of specifying, detention within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores rather than the Secure Forensic Service. This would provide the Hospital with discretion to move Mr. Roberts to a less secure environment. Counsel for the Attorney-General supported a continuation of the current Disposition, but opposed a change in the wording to the Forensic Program, and also opposed a transfer to CAMH. Counsel for Mr. Roberts submitted that a conditional discharge was appropriate with community living, and that the Disposition should direct an immediate move to a general unit. Counsel also advised that Mr. Roberts was still requesting a transfer to CAMH.
After considering the evidence, the panel concluded that Mr. Roberts remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a detention order to the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores was appropriate with the conditions recommended by the Hospital. The panel further concluded that a transfer to CAMH was not appropriate. Without objection from the parties, the panel modified the privilege permitting indirectly supervised passes into the community within a 150-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores to include that the passes be within the Province of Ontario.
Index Offence
- The following is a synopsis of the index offence.
The victim of the index offence resided at 23 Ellendale Drive, Toronto, with her mother. The accused rented a room in this home. From August 2012 to June 2013 the accused persistently harassed the victim. He repeatedly asked the victim to go out on dates and to marry him.
In August 2012, the victim was doing laundry when the accused entered the room wearing only his underwear. Following this occurrence, the accused would often approach the victim partially clothed and ask her for a date and/or marriage.
The accused would watch the victim leave the house and return each day, and would stare at her from his window and yell inappropriate remarks. He would often bang forcefully on her window to get her attention, and he would shine a flashlight on the victim to intimidate her. The victim told the accused daily to leave her alone or she would call the police.
The victim was fearful of the accused and ultimately moved from this residence. When she occasionally returned to this residence to visit her mother the accused would stare at her, make inappropriate comments, and stand on the top of the basement stairs partially clothed and watch her walk by him.
The victim and her mother attended a Landlord/Tenant hearing in December 2012. The accused sat directly behind the victim, he pulled her hair with significant force, smelled her hair, and then smelled the scarf she was wearing. He continually kicked the back of her chair.
In May 2023, the victim was at a subway station waiting for her bus when she noticed the accused standing across from her and staring at her. He continued to stare at the victim for approximately 45 minutes. The victim was afraid to board the bus and instead hailed a taxi. She observed the accuse follow her to the taxi. Later the same month the victim was leaving her mother’s home when she heard the accused banging on a window and waving a yellow wedding band in his hand. Later that day he called the victim 4-5 time on her cellphone, and she was concerned that the accused knew her phone number.
In June 2013, the victim received a bouquet of flowers from the accused. She immediately contacted the police.
Evidence at Hearing
Hospital Report
The evidence at this hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated November 5, 2025, and the testimony of Dr. Karen DeFreitas. Dr. DeFreitas was Mr. Roberts’ treating psychiatrist from the time of his arrival at Ontario Shores in June 2025, until October 22, 2025, when he was transferred from the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit to the Forensic and Assessment Rehabilitation Unit.
The Hospital Report was prepared for this hearing, and contains a detailed review of Mr. Roberts’ personal and mental health history.
Mr. Roberts has never been married and has no dependents. He has one older sister. He briefly attended college and left to work in the music industry. Mr. Roberts worked periodically as a DJ, and has been receiving ODSP since 2017.
Mr. Roberts is currently diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Autism Spectrum Disorder.
It is apparent from the evidence, both the Hospital Report detailing his behavioural issues historically, and the testimony at this hearing, that, in regards to the issue of significant threat, the issues to be considered relate to Mr. Robert’s harassment and stalking of women with whom he comes into contact. He also has a modest history of aggressive and violent behaviour. The evidence indicates that he lacks an appreciation of the harm he has caused with this behaviour and the need for treatment.
Mr. Roberts has no criminal convictions prior to the index offence. A charge of assault was withdrawn on March 22, 2004, and charges of false fire alarm and mischief were withdrawn on August 8, 2006.
In 2006 Mr. Roberts was charged with assault and fail to comply with recognizance. The assault was related to Mr. Roberts knocking an elderly woman to the ground. He was found NCR for this offence, and was granted an absolute discharge in 2011.
On June 26, 2014, Mr. Roberts was found NCR for this index offence. He resided in the community until December 2020 when he was again charged with criminal harassment. This was in relation to Mr. Roberts stalking a female cashier at a local grocery store. This charge was resolved with Mr. Roberts entering into a Peace Bond. He has remained in hospital since being charged with the 2020 offence.
He was discharged from CAMH to live in the community in 2008. He resided in a basement apartment in the home of the victim of the index offence until his arrest.
Prior to the index offence Mr. Roberts had been admitted to various hospitals for psychiatric care. The hospital reports indicate that Mr. Roberts presented to their emergency departments generally exhibiting bizarre behaviour, yelling, shouting, and at times, responding to internal stimuli. During his time at CAMH following the 2006 NCR finding the report describes Mr. Roberts as a very challenging patient. He filed complaints against 12 nurses with the Ontario Nursing Association, and would repeatedly make nuisance telephone calls to the police.
Mr. Roberts was often non-adherent to his medication following the granting of an absolute discharge in 2011 when he was living in the community.
Soon after Mr. Roberts was admitted to CAMH following the index offence he was arrested for contacting the victim contrary to his court ordered release terms. He continued his attempts to contact her after being directed by the police and hospital staff to stop.
Mr. Roberts was found fit to stand trial and was detained at the Toronto East Detention Centre. He was transferred to Ontario Shores on December 9, 2014, for an assessment of criminal responsibility, and was found NCR on June 26, 2014.
Reports from Ontario Shores at that time describe Mr. Roberts as experiencing significant psychotic symptoms, and presenting with bizarre and sexually inappropriate behaviour. He continued to make attempts to contact the victim which resulted in the Hospital controlling his use of the telephone.
Mr. Roberts was initially detained at Ontario Shores until April 2015, when he was transferred to CAMH. He was discharged to live in the community in October 2015, and was readmitted to hospital after his arrest for the 2020 criminal harassment charge. In October 2023 he was transferred to Waypoint and then in June 2025, transferred to Ontario Shores.
Mr. Roberts was a very challenging patient at CAMH, and his behaviour ultimately resulted in CAMH requesting he be transferred to Waypoint; Ontario’s only high secure forensic psychiatric program. The Hospital Report indicates that he became fixated on various female staff at CAMH, and engaged in stalking-like behaviour; following staff around the unit, intense staring, positioning himself physically close to the staff member, marriage proposals and inappropriate comments. There was an incident where he forcefully grabbed a nurse by the arm, and a situation where he banged on a window causing a nurse to fear leaving the room. The evidence provides that 11 staff members were victimized by Mr. Roberts’ behaviour. Two staff had formal safety plans, and 4 requested transfers off of the secure units.
In addition to the stalking behaviour, Mr. Roberts was persistent in falsely complaining about staff to their regulatory bodies, as well as contacting the police on various occasions to report that he was being abused by the staff at CAMH. The staff expressed to management that Mr. Roberts’ behaviour was very stressful for them.
For a prolonged period of time at CAMH Mr. Roberts refused his antipsychotic medication, and began exhibiting psychotic symptoms such as bizarre behaviour. He refused to follow the covid protocols, and contrary to specific direction, would approach other patients when they were to be isolated. There were occasions when he spread feces on walls and urinated on the floor.
When questioned, Mr. Roberts refused to accept that his behaviour was problematic or that the various staff members had suffered in any way. He also refused to accept that he benefitted from medication.
Soon after his admission to Waypoint Mr. Roberts began accepting his antipsychotic medication and his condition improved. He still, however, challenged rules and directions and complained about staff behaviour.
He was observed to ogle a female staff member on one occasion, and he refused to enter his room until the nurse walked down the hallway and opened the door for him on another occasion.
Mr. Roberts was transferred to Ontario Shores on June 20, 2025, after it was determined that he no longer required the Waypoint high secure facility. He was initially on the secure Forensic Rehabilitation Unit, but was transferred to the Forensic Assessment Rehabilitation Unit on October 22, 2025, after a co-patient tried to instigate a fight with Mr. Roberts. In addition, he had developed a fixation on a certain recreational therapist, and he was making the work environment very uncomfortable for her.
Mr. Roberts has appropriately used hospital and grounds privileges accompanied by staff numerous times. He rarely attends to any programs that are offered unless the specific recreational therapist is running the program.
The Hospital Report provides that there was no evidence of delusions or hallucinations at a recent mental status examination.
A Psychological Risk Assessment was completed on October 9, 2025. This report refers to various risk factors: multiple charges of criminal harassment related to stalking behaviour in which the victims have experienced psychological harm, a diagnosis of Schizophrenia and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), which have both contributed to a history of past violence, and a history of medication noncompliance. Furthermore, Mr. Roberts denies ever engaging in erratic or irrational behaviour in the past, and he does not accept that he has ever engaged in behaviour that would be associated with criminal harassment. The report refers to Mr. Roberts becoming fixated on a female staff member since his transfer to his current unit as a risk factor that should be taken into consideration. The report states that the fixation on female staff likely stems from the ASD which needs to be addressed with therapy.
Mr. Roberts has been compliant with his medication, but has declined offers of psychosocial support.
Testimony of Dr. DeFreitas
Dr. DeFreitas testified that Mr. Roberts has only accompanied privileges at the present time.
She stated that he has been offered therapy with a psychologist to treat the ASD but has declined. He has also declined other group programming that is available. Dr. DeFreitas indicated that there has been a modest decline in his condition since his arrival at Ontario Shores.
She referred to his romantic fixation with the recreational therapist, and explained that Mr. Roberts does not want to leave his unit when the therapist is present. He is prevented from attending group outings when the therapist is engaged with the group. The Hospital has also had to change certain routines to prevent Mr. Roberts from coming into contact on the unit with the therapist. Dr. DeFreitas also indicated that another patient complained that Mr. Roberts tried to assault him.
Regarding significant threat to the safety of the public, Dr. DeFreitas referred to his lengthy history of criminal harassment type behaviour, and that he has no insight whatsoever into his behaviour and the harm it causes. In her opinion, Mr. Roberts would definitely continue to harass people if he were living in the community.
She believes that the risk of violent behaviour is less than the risk of harassing behaviour, but that it may become more significant if Mr. Roberts was not taking his medication and his psychotic symptoms became more intense.
Dr. DeFreitas testified that she believes psychological therapy would benefit Mr. Roberts, and that his refusal to participate in this therapy hampers his progress.
She referred to his behaviour being much worse in 2022 and 2023 when he was not taking his medication.
Dr. DeFreitas explained that the Hospital is requesting a change in the wording of the Disposition to Forensic Program from a Secure Unit, to permit the Hospital to transfer Mr. Roberts to a less secure unit this year if appropriate. Dr. DeFreitas does not believe that community living in this next year is a possibility.
Regarding a conditional discharge, Dr. DeFreitas testified that the Mental Health Act is not suitable to manage his risk to public safety. She does not believe that Mr. Roberts would return to the hospital voluntarily since he has no insight into his behaviour, and the Box B criteria under the Mental Health Act would not apply because Mr. Roberts is deemed capable to consent to his psychiatric treatment.
She is not currently recommending a move to a lesser secure unit. For Mr. Roberts to improve, Dr. DeFreitas believes it to be necessary for him to remain compliant with his antipsychotic medication and participate in therapeutic programming.
In answer to questions from the Crown, Dr. DeFreitas acknowledged that there is a greater risk of elopement on a general unit, and that there is a higher staff to patient ratio on a secure unit. She further testified that his risk to public safety is better managed on a secure unit at this time, but, that over the course of the next 12 months, it could be appropriate to move Mr. Roberts to a less secure unit.
In answer to questions from counsel for Mr. Roberts, Dr. DeFreitas acknowledged that Mr. Roberts has not exhibited any violent behaviour since his transfer to the Forensic Assessment Rehabilitation Unit on October 22, 2025. She agreed with counsel’s suggestion that participation in therapeutic programming requires internal motivation which is very difficult for Mr. Roberts. She also advised that they haven’t had the opportunity to use the psychologist on the new unit.
Dr. DeFreitas confirmed that Mr. Roberts has been compliant with his medication at Ontario Shores. She also agreed with a reference in the Hospital Report that states, “to treat his autism, a psychologist would have to meet with him and focus on specified issues”.
In answer to questions from the panel, Dr. DeFreitas testified that Mr. Roberts’ risk to public safety is high in both a secure environment and a minimally secure environment. The issue for her is containing the risk. Mr. Roberts told a psychologist that he does not want to meet with a psychologist and discuss the stalking behaviour because that would be admitting he did something wrong. He also does not want to participate in group therapy to treat either his psychosis or autism. Dr. DeFreitas indicated that Mr. Roberts declines to discuss symptoms of Schizophrenia that he may be experiencing because he does not believe he has a problem.
Dr. DeFreitas reiterated that her major concern is the stalking behaviour, and to a lesser extent, behaviour that is violent. She also believes that Mr. Roberts is less likely to behave violently if medicated.
She does not know why Mr. Roberts was willing to engage in therapy last year but not currently.
Dr. DeFreitas does not believe that there is a therapeutic impasse at Ontario Shores.
Dr. DeFreitas was asked to clarify if the lack of insight was attributable to the Schizophrenia, the ASD, or both. She responded by suggesting the lack of insight was more consistent with Schizophrenia, and that insight into his autism disorder has not been specifically explored so far.
Dr. DeFreitas was asked if Mr. Roberts had been offered psychoeducation for healthy relationships and consent without having to admit any wrongdoing. She stated that Mr. Roberts would likely decline the opportunity since he does not see a need to participate in therapeutic programming.
Dr. DeFreitas was referred to the Hospital Report and the psychologist’s comments that Mr. Roberts exhibited positive impression management, and she was asked if this could be used as leverage or motivation to have him engage in behaviour specific treatment. Dr. DeFreitas replied that she has not seen positive impression management traits in her interactions with Mr. Roberts.
She indicated to counsel for the Hospital that the only benefit to transferring Mr. Roberts to CAMH was to comply with his desire to move to Toronto. She acknowledged to Mr. Paas that CAMH is closer to his family which could possibly be positive motivation for him
Submissions
The Hospital submitted that Mr. Roberts remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, but that he could possibly be moved to a less secure unit this year. For this to occur, the Disposition needed to reflect detention in the Forensic Program rather than restrict detention to a secure unit. The Hospital further submitted that a conditional discharge was not appropriate, and that it was necessary for the Hospital to approve housing for Mr. Roberts when community living was possible.
The Crown submitted that very significant issues occurred at CAMH, and that there is no therapeutic relationship between CAMH and Mr. Roberts. The Crown also correctly stated that CAMH had not responded to the request from Mr. Roberts for a transfer to their facility. The Crown referred to Mr. Roberts having no insight into his condition or his behaviour. She also referred to the higher staff to patient ratio on the secure unit, which meant more staff available to intervene if problems arose. Therefore, the Crown submitted, the Disposition should continue to specify detention on a secure unit.
Counsel for Mr. Roberts did not make any submissions regarding a conditional discharge. He suggested that the Disposition should direct the Hospital to move Mr. Roberts to a general unit forthwith. He referred to Mr. Roberts being compliant with his medication, and that there has been an improvement in his behaviour. Regarding a transfer to CAMH, counsel suggested that this could be motivation for him. He also referred to the evidence that Mr. Roberts was not medicated in 2022-2023 when detained at CAMH.
Analysis
After considering the evidence, the panel accepts that Mr. Roberts remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a continuation of the detention order is necessary and appropriate.
He has a lengthy and persistent history of stalking/harassing women, both in the community and staff in the hospital. This behaviour continues in regards to a staff member at Ontario Shores, and attempts to discuss this inappropriate behaviour with him have been unsuccessful. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Roberts was frequently observed staring into the nursing station at a particular recreational therapist soon after he arrived at Ontario Shores. He approached this woman with an engagement ring and he attempted to propose marriage, which was after he provided her with his personal contact information. Mr. Roberts was advised by the particular therapist as well as the treatment team to refrain from this behaviour. The Report states that he was dismissive of the redirection provided by staff, and he reported that he would continue to approach this therapist until he felt she was being honest and her rejections towards him were of her own free will.
It is very clear from the evidence that the stalking behaviour will continue, and that Mr. Roberts has no insight into the harm this behaviour causes. He requires very close monitoring and supervision to contain this behaviour, and without such monitoring and supervision, this behaviour would become more prevalent and intense.
Mr. Roberts also has a history of violent behaviour, which appears to be controlled with medication to treat his Schizophrenia. He is currently taking his antipsychotic medication, but he does have a history, particularly at CAMH, of not being compliant with his medication. Without the medication his psychotic symptoms would intensify, and his behaviour would very likely become violent. Mr. Roberts has stated at various times that he does not need medication and he derives no benefit from medication. This belief certainly increases the risk that he would stop taking his medication without a detention order.
The evidence indicates the importance of Mr. Roberts engaging in therapeutic programming to treat his ASD. The psychological assessment specifically refers to the ASD as being the likely reason for his fixation on women, and the need for the ASD to be treated with therapy.
Mr. Roberts participated in therapy at Waypoint. Dr. DeFreitas testified that Mr. Roberts has declined therapy at Ontario Shores because he will not admit to wrongdoing, or behaviour that is associated with harassment or stalking. It appears to this panel that the Hospital should consider a more nuanced approach to engaging Mr. Roberts in therapy. The fact that Mr. Roberts refuses to admit wrongdoing should not be a barrier to the treatment. The panel would expect a benefit from therapy without him having to admit fault.
The alternative approach of waiting until Mr. Roberts chooses to engage in therapy is not a satisfactory approach. Without the therapy, not only is his behaviour not likely to improve, but his insight into his illness and behaviour, and the need for treatment, is not likely to improve. The Hospital should explore various avenues to engage Mr. Roberts in this treatment.
In coming to this conclusion, the panel has applied the principles provided in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 22^nd^ day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Kevin McKenna
Legal Member
_____________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board