Re: Helen Fehr, 2025 CanLII 135035

Re: Helen Fehr

ORB File No: 6422

Hearing held on: Monday, November 24, 2025

Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills

Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill

Dr. G. Stones

Ms. C. Fromstein

Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Helen Fehr

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 22, 2025)

Introduction

1. On October 30, 2013, Helen Fehr was found unfit to stand trial on charges of assault and forcible confinement, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”). Ms. Fehr is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated November 21, 2024, detaining her at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Brébeuf Program for Regional Forensics, Penetanguishene, with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community within the catchment area of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. On November 24, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review Ms. Fehr’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.48(1) and s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Fehr was not present for her hearing and was permitted to be absent pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Fehr was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.

3. The issues to be determined are whether Ms. Fehr is unfit to stand trial, and if so, whether she is likely permanently unfit. If likely permanently unfit, the Board must decide whether Ms. Fehr represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4. At the commencement of the hearing, the representative for the hospital submitted that Ms. Fehr remains unfit to stand trial and there should be no change to her current disposition. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the hospital’s recommendation. Counsel for Ms. Fehr advised that she took no position regarding fitness and that Ms. Fehr had instructed her that she wished her disposition to remain the same. All parties maintained their respective positions in closing submissions.

5. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Ms. Fehr remains unfit to stand trial and that she is likely permanently unfit and that she represents a significant threat to safety of the public. The Board further finds that there should be no change to her current disposition.

Evidence at the Hearing

6. The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Hospital Report dated October 7, 2025, and a progress note dated November 21, 2025, marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively. The Board also heard viva voce testimony from Dr. A. Jones, Ms. Fehr’s treating psychiatrist.

Outstanding Charges

7. On Friday, April 12th, 2013, at approximately 9:15 am, Ms. Fehr was at home with her roommate, who is the victim of the outstanding charges, at their Community Care Living apartment. Ms. Fehr had disconnected the cable from the T.V. because she believed that it was part of a detonation device and that it would explode.

The victim attempted to reconnect the cable at which time Ms. Fehr is alleged to have attacked her and began hitting the victim in the back. Ms. Fehr is then alleged to have stuck the victim in the face causing swelling and bleeding to her lips, and to have kicked and pushed the victim into the victim’s bedroom and tied pantyhose to the victim’s doorknob and to the hall closet door, preventing the victim from getting out of her room. The victim was held there for approximately 30 minutes.

At approximately 9:45 a.m., one of the assisted living community workers entered the unit to stock the fridge in their residence. Upon entry, the worker noted that there was something peculiar in that Ms. Fehr was sitting on the victim’s couch and appeared to be very agitated. The worker called out for the victim when she did not see her in the room. The victim was able to open her bedroom door, and the worker noticed the victim’s bloody face.

8. The Hospital Report outlines Ms. Fehr’s background and history and need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Ms. Fehr is 48 years old. The Hospital Report indicates the Ms. Fehr was raised by her mother together with four siblings. She attended college but did not finish her education. Ms. Fehr is not reported to have any history of substance use. Collateral information indicates that Ms. Fehr began to show signs of mental illness when she was 18 years old; however, this remained untreated.

9. Ms. Fehr was found not criminally responsible on August 21, 2012, on charges of neglect of a duty to a dead human body and indignity to a dead human body. Ms. Fehr was granted an absolute discharge by the Court. The charges arose when her mother, with whom she lived, died in their apartment. Fearing for her life, Ms. Fehr left the apartment and her mother’s dead body. Ms. Fehr was found living in a ditch a few days later.

10. Ms. Fehr is single with no dependants. She is supported by ODSP. Prior to the NCR finding above, she had no criminal record. Ms. Fehr has no history of substance use.

11. Ms. Fehr is diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia.

Course Since Last Disposition

12. Ms. Fehr has remained living at Brébeuf throughout the year in review. Ms. Fehr has remained non-communicative, particularly with respect to her legal predicament. She continues to refuse to speak with Dr. Jones. There are a handful of select staff that she will communicate with, but her communication is minimal.

13. Ms. Fehr has not been a management problem; she follows the hospital rules and policies. She is described as being superficially social with select co-patients and staff and is pleasant and polite in her interactions but will not engage in a therapeutic manner. Ms. Fehr has privilege levels which include hospital grounds indirectly supervised, indirectly supervised yard for one hour at a time and community access within the catchment area of Waypoint, accompanied by staff. The Hospital Report indicates that Ms. Fehr uses her privileges in a limited capacity. She sometimes attends courtyard independently throughout the day and occasionally with co-patients but does not take advantage of the full range of her privileges.

14. Attempts to engage or offer her recreational and leisure programming that would suit her interests have been declined. Throughout the year, Ms. Fehr continued to remain unwilling to engage in fitness assessments or discuss her legal situation with the clinical team. The Hospital Report also indicates that she has not been willing to discuss her proposed transition to community living. More recently, Ms. Fehr has been accepted for Community Housing Ontario (CHO) and has been placed on a waiting list for a group home within the catchment area of the hospital.

Analysis

15. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bharwani 2025 SCC 26 has recently held that to be fit to stand trial an accused must be able to make reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence and intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court. This requires a reality-based understanding of the nature or object and possible consequences of the proceedings, as well as an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and to select between those options when making decisions. The accused is not required to make decisions in their best interests, but cannot be overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder when making and communicating these decisions (para 77). The Court further stated that the key issue in most fitness hearings before the Board is whether the accused’s mental disorder prevents them from conducting a defence (para 33).

16. The “capacity” required to make these decisions includes “a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decision (para 61). “Momentary” or “transient” symptoms that prevent an accused from making reality-based decisions will not render the accused unfit if the trial judge utilizes their inherent trial management powers to get the accused “back on track” (para 78). The Court also held that the fitness test is contextual (para 65). In Clayton (Re), 2025 ONCA 308, the Court of Appeal held that the nature of the charges and allegations is important context when applying the fitness test because, “the simpler the case is, the easier it is to understand, appreciate and talk about” (para 11).

17. The Board accepts the testimony of Dr. Jones as supported by the Hospital Report and the recent progress note and finds that Ms. Fehr is unfit to stand trial and that she is likely permanently unfit. Ms. Fehr remains uncooperative in discussing her symptoms. She has been observed by staff to be responding to internal stimuli. Dr. Jones testified that more recently Ms. Fehr has been refusing her oral medication for EPS asserting that she believes that the medication is for her heart. She continues to consistently decline to speak with members of the treatment team regarding her charges. Dr. Jones testified that in her view, Ms. Fehr remains psychotic and has recently developed a delusional belief about her medication. Moreover, she continues to speak of communication with her husband and the lawyer, whom her husband has retained for her, both of which are delusional entities. Notably, in her communications Ms. Fehr is told not to answer any questions.

18. The Board accepts Dr. Jones’ opinion that it is Ms. Fehr’s delusional beliefs that significantly undermine her ability to communicate with her real counsel and undermines her ability to meaningfully participate in her legal proceedings. Furthermore, Ms. Fehr has been unfit to stand trial since 2013. She suffers from a treatment refractory form of schizophrenia. Ms. Fehr has been trialled on numerous antipsychotic medications with no meaningful improvement and is likely permanently unfit.

19. Having found that Ms. Fehr is likely permanently unfit, the Board must consider whether she represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Ms. Fehr has a history of medication noncompliance and more recently she has begun to refuse her oral medication for EPS. Given Ms. Fehr’s current presentation; her persistent psychosis and recently developed delusional belief about her medication, it is likely that she would not continue to take her medication if she were not under the jurisdiction of the Board. Without her medication it is highly likely that Ms. Fehr’s psychosis would increase, and she would exhibit behaviour similar to that at the time of the index offences. For these reasons, the Board finds that Ms. Fehr is a significant threat to the safety of the public.

20. The Board has considered a discharge with conditions; however, the Board finds that a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition. In the context of her ongoing psychosis and delusional beliefs, the hospital requires the ability to approve Ms. Fehr’s accommodation to ensure that she receives the support and monitoring that she requires in order to manage her risk to the safety of the public. In addition, Ms. Fehr has no professional or social community supports to assist her were she to be conditionally discharged. For these reasons, the Board finds that a discharge with conditions is neither necessary nor appropriate.

21. Ms. Fehr has expressed her wish to remain at the Brebuef program. In August 2025, the Public Guardian and Trustee, who acts as her substitute decision maker, consented to her admission to a group home, Manitoba Place, and she is now on the waiting list for that residence. The group home is located outside of Bracebridge and is run by a family who live on-site. It has a home-like atmosphere in a rural setting. The treatment team believe that this is the type of setting in which Ms. Fehr would have most chance of success. Once a bed becomes available plans will be made for Ms. Fehr’s transition. The Board acknowledges that Ms. Fehr may not want to move and that the transition may be stressful for her. The Board is hopeful that with the necessary supports Ms. Fehr will be able to move forward with her life.

Disposition

22. In making a disposition, the Board must take into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which is the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.

23. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that Ms. Fehr is permanently unfit and that she represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to her disposition.

DATED this 22nd day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. J. Mills

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board