Re: Anthony Villanueva, 2025 CanLII 135630

Ontario Review Board

Re: Anthony Villanueva

ORB File No: 7168

Hearing held on: November 6, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. J. Ferencz Dr. G. Stones Mr. D. Sandor Ms. M. McKinnon

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Anthony Villanueva Counsel: Mr. J.J. Chapnick

The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 29, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On July 4, 2017, Anthony Villanueva was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on the following charges:

• possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose,
• prowl by night,
• mischief over $5000, and
• resisting arrest.

He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 18, 2024, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That disposition grants him certain privileges, including 72 hour passes that may be exercised multiple times per year in Southwestern Ontario and that of living in the community of Elgin and Middlesex Counties in accommodation approved by the person in charge at the Hospital. The Disposition also imposes conditions, including that of abstaining from the use of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants and a condition that he submit samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition. He is not to have any contact or communication, direct or indirect with Rachel Sypher without her written revocable consent which is to be filed with the person in charge of the Hospital.

2. On November 6, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital to review that disposition. Mr. Villanueva was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel.

3. The record for the hearing consisted of the Notice of Hearing, the most recent Disposition, and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated September 4, 2025 was entered into evidence as an exhibit.

4. The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Ms. Zamprogna, lawyer for the Hospital, took the position that Mr. Villanueva continued to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. It also took the position that a continued detention disposition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. A key submission presented by the parties was the recommendation that the next disposition remove a clause requiring Mr. Villanueva to abstain from the use of substances or alcohol while maintaining a condition that he submit to screenings to monitor his abstinence from the same. The parties suggested that this would be undertaken in an attempt to assess Mr. Villanueva’s internally motivated insight into the risks associated with any use of substances engaged in by him.

5. Both Mr. Rows, counsel representing the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Villanueva, Mr. Chapnick, joined the Hospital in that submission.

6. The hearing proceeded on the basis of that joint submission. Following the hearing the panel deliberated and concluded that the joint submission was appropriate in all respects. It considered the evidence in support of the threshold issue of significant threat and agreed that the Hospital had established that it attained to the onerous standard set out in Winko. It also agreed that a continued detention disposition was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Evidence at the Hearing

7. The evidence for the hearing came primarily from the Hospital Report mentioned and from the viva voce testimony of Dr. Ajay Prakash, Mr. Villanueva’s treating psychiatrist.

8. Dealing first with the evidence contained in exhibit 1, the Hospital Report included a summary of the index offences as also set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

On April 2, 2017, at approximately 5:19 AM, officers from the Sarnia Police Service received a radio call in regard to an unwanted person aboard the Algoma Transport freighter on Seaway Road in the City of Sarnia. Information provided was that a single male, approximately 6’ tall with a thick build, 170 lbs, wearing a grey and blue toque with a black jacket was on board.

Upon officers arriving, they were informed by the crew that the male had boarded the docked ship and was currently in the kitchen galley. He was holding what appeared to be an approximately 16-inch knife. It was advised that the male appeared to be having a mental breakdown and was not listening to the commands to leave the freighter.

The officers attended on to the freighter and observed Anthony Villanueva inside the kitchen galley through an outside window. Entry was made through a door, and officers were met by Villanueva. During this confrontation, Villanueva was holding an approximately 16-inch knife. He was commanded multiple times to drop the knife before a taser was deployed. A struggle ensued and Villanueva was eventually taken into custody.

The Hospital Report also explains, as noted in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, that Mr. Villanueva had cut the wires to the ship’s computers, and had told the police that “God had allowed him onto His ship, and a ghost had granted him access by lowering the ladder.”

9. Mr. Villanueva’s history of charges preceding the index offences is also set out in exhibit 1. His record includes two convictions for assaults, a mischief under $5000 and several convictions associated with his non-compliance with court orders. Dr. Jafaraday explained that while Mr. Villanueva had been charged with the sexual assault of his wife, this was withdrawn at the request of the Crown following Mr. Villanueva’s entering into a common-law peace bond that remains in place for a period of 18 months.

10. Mr. Villanueva’s history of struggles with major mental illness dates back to 2004 when he was 12 years old and showed struggles with suicidal ideation, hyperactivity, impulsivity, fire setting and hypomania. As an adult he has been followed as an outpatient with working diagnoses of reactive depression and polysubstance use disorder and a further possible diagnosis of personality disorder. He is currently diagnosed with:

• Schizophrenia
• History of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), and
• Substance Use Disorder (SUD) (in remission, in a controlled environment).

11. The Hospital Report itself is cumulative in nature. As such it includes all of the detail relied upon in the most recent Reasons for Disposition (dated December 12, 2024) which is summarized in the Analysis and Conclusion portion of those Reasons as follows:

Mr. Villanueva suffers from major mental illness – not just schizophrenia, but also substance use disorder and antisocial personality disorder. These illnesses were key factors in the commission of both the index offence and subsequent offending behavior including the sexual assault of his former spouse. While there has been clear improvement in terms of the primary psychotic symptoms of his schizophrenia, and with regard to his abstinence and insight associated with the deleterious impact use of substances has on that illness, Mr. Villanueva still shows lack of insight associated with features of the antisocial personality disorder. His rule breaking and lack of transparency with the Hospital elevates concerns that Mr. Villanueva will become periodically noncompliant with treatment and supports. It informs Dr Jafaraday’s opinion that Mr. Villanueva remains vulnerable to relapse…

The evidence was clear that while Mr. Villanueva has made good progress over the past year, the safety of the public would not be assured by anything other than a detention order. Mr. Villanueva is still in the process of reintegrating into the community. His housing is not stable, and the Hospital will need to be able to approve his accommodations in the future. He is only now engaging in psychotherapy. The supports he currently enjoys need to be expanded and reinforced given the family stressors he will continue to experience. He is still vulnerable to relapse into substance use and that vulnerability is of increased concern given incidents of rule breaking and deception over the course of the past year.

12. The Hospital Report begins its update for the purposes of this hearing at page 184. It explains as follows:

• On May 16, 2024, Mr. Villanueva moved to the C.K. Clarke Centre, a 24/7 supervised transitional rehabilitation group home in London, Ontario. Throughout the year, Mr. Villanueva’s major mental illness remained well-controlled. He did not experience the primary symptoms of his psychosis and did not show signs of negative symptoms.
• Mr. Villanueva remained pro-social throughout this period of review and gained full-time employment removing snow on December 1, 2024. This transitioned into landscape work with TLC, a large landscaping and snow removal company serving London, Ontario and the surrounding area. Mr. Villanueva maintained that employment and set reasonable financial goals to free himself from debt and save for an apartment and family expenses with his children.
• Mr. Villanueva’s residency at the Clarke Centre will end in April 2026, following which he has developed a plan to rent his own apartment.
• Mr. Villanueva appears to have good insight into his illnesses, his need for treatment, and his risk of violence.
• Mr. Villanueva exercised privileges and passes appropriately over this period of review. He maintained positive connections with his grandmother, mother and friends.
• Mr. Villanueva is capable of managing decisions related to his treatment. His medications are supervised by Clarke Centre staff, and his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication is administered by Panorama’s injection nurses’ program to accommodate his extended work hours. Mr. Villanueva receives ongoing support from the social worker employed full time at the Clarke Centre.
• Substance use being a historic factor, Mr. Villanueva has relied on his employment and on mindfulness and breathing exercises to help control cravings. On occasions over this period of review when cravings intensified, he engaged in group meetings and identified family court stressors as being triggering. Overall, Mr. Villanueva has good insight into his substance use issues and has demonstrated an ability to use appropriate coping strategies over the course of this past year in a supervised setting.
• Mr. Villanueva has shown independent living skills and reasonable initiative in organizing unstructured time. He does tend to spend most of his day sleeping in his room and avoiding people when stresses associated with family court arise. He does however have positive family and social supports as well as professional supports through the Community Health Centre in St. Thomas.

Risk Assessment

13. The Hospital Report includes an assessment of Mr. Villanueva’s overall risk completed for the purposes of this hearing. It is generally positive, noting no clinical concerns, but highlighting risk management items associated with the need to more fully connect Mr. Villanueva with community supports and with stable housing as he navigates the conclusion of his transition at the Clarke Centre and ongoing family court matters. It suggests that Mr. Villanueva requires assessment in less-supervised settings to ensure ongoing compliance with treatment recommendations and management of life stressors. In its conclusion, it states as follows:

Mr. Villanueva’s overall risk is low in a supervised and structured environment while on a detention order and moderate when considering an environment with less supervision (e.g., independent living). His risk would be considered high under an absolute discharge.

Reoffence Scenario

Absent Forensic supports, Mr. Villanueva may experience stress-related situations. Without the support of his Forensic treatment team or Clarke Centre staff he would likely be unable to cope with stressors and feel triggered to reengage in substance use. Loss of controls and supervision in the past have led to active substance use followed by decompensation, increasing his risk of violence.

Dr. Prakash’s update given to the Board

14. Dr. Prakash’s update to the Board echoed the contents of the Hospital Report. He emphasized the progress Mr. Villanueva has made over the course of the past review period. While some of this was connected to the support of the treatment team and the supervised circumstances Mr. Villanueva lives at the Clarke Centre, Dr. Prakash gave appropriate praise to his patient and expressed hope for the process of further reintegration into the community to take place in the coming year.

15. Dr. Prakash did maintain concerns associated with the stresses Mr. Villanueva continues to face and expressed the need for ongoing supports, particularly with cravings for substances during high-stress periods. He indicated that, should Mr. Villanueva return to the use of substances, his decompensation would be swift. According to Dr. Prakash, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would not suffice to assure the protection of the public in such circumstances, and the Hospital would need to respond quickly to initial signs of psychosis. Dr. Prakash also highlighted the need to approve Mr. Villanueva’s accommodations as he transitions out of the Clarke Centre in April 2026.

16. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Villanueva has completed a number of relapse prevention programs and receives naltrexone to control cravings. He is connected with Celebrate Recovery. Given his recent success with abstaining from substances, Dr. Prakash recommended the removal of the abstention clause while maintaining the clause to submit urine and breath samples for analysis. Dr. Prakash described this next year as a “testing period” as Mr. Villanueva transitions into less-supervised housing.

17. Dr. Prakash indicated that Mr. Villanueva has completed the Caring Dads/Changing Ways program. He sees his children now with his parenting time with his youngest child being supervised and supported by members of his family. Mr. Villanueva’s parenting time with his eldest child is no longer supervised.

18. No other evidence was called.

Submissions

19. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties renewed their positions as set out at the hearing’s commencement. All agreed that Mr. Villanueva continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition deleting the abstain clause but maintaining testing for use of substances was necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. All agreed that this has been a good year for Mr. Villanueva. He is adherent to treatment, has not used substances since transitioning to the Clarke Centre, has worked on developing better coping skills, is employed and is maintaining pro-social relationships with family, including his children. The parties all also agreed that this next year would be an important time to test Mr. Villanueva’s insight into his need to abstain from the use of substances, particularly as he manages family court stresses in less-supervised environments. They highlighted the importance of bringing Mr. Villanueva back to the Hospital quickly if there is a decompensation and relapse. They said that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to assure the safety of the public, pointing to Mr. Villanueva’s capacity to consent to treatment and historic rapidity of deterioration.

Analysis and conclusion

20. As stated, the panel agrees with this joint submission. In doing so, it has not arrived at its conclusion lightly. The threshold consideration of significant threat to the safety of the public, as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been illustrated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko, is an onerous one. Even on a joint submission, the Board must consider whether the evidence establishes a real risk of significant harm flowing from serious criminal conduct that would occur absent a disposition. In our view, this standard has been met on the evidence before us.

21. The index offences that brought Mr. Villanueva before the Board are serious and were committed as a result of concerning substance use that led to aggravation of the symptoms of his major mental illness. Mr. Villanueva has been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder the traits of which, for him, have included disregard for rules and social norms and diminished transparency. This impacted his progress in a supervised setting and while he is doing well in that setting now, it remains to be seen how he will do as he transitions to a less-supervised environment.

22. Mr. Villanueva has a history of being readmitted to hospital as result of decompensation related to stress (i.e., interpersonal relationships), substance use, symptoms of his mental illness and antisocial behaviours. He is still going through family proceedings and will be moving from the Clarke Centre’s transitional housing in April 2026. Based on his history, he continues to require forensic support. Mr. Villanueva still requires connection with a community-based psychiatrist and mental health team to support his needs appropriately. In our view, the Re-offence Scenario described in the Hospital Report is realistic and not speculative. As such, it is our conclusion that, notwithstanding a very successful year, Mr. Villanueva continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

23. The Board also agrees that a detention disposition as sought by the parties is necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set forth in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board has asked itself whether any lesser disposition or other conditions would adequately ensure the safety of the public. In our view, the answer to that question is “no.” Mr. Villanueva suffers from a major mental illness and requires support as he navigates ongoing stresses that have given rise to cravings for substances that have historically led to the rapid decompensation of his psychosis. While he managed those cravings very effectively over the course of this past review period, that was done in a highly supervised and supportive setting and with the external motivation of a Board disposition. This year will be a key year of testing to see how Mr. Villanueva engages with less supervision and more community supports and in the absence of a condition that he abstain from the use of substances. The Board also notes that it will be important for the Hospital to approve Mr. Villanueva’s housing as he transitions out of the Clarke Centre. The reduction in supervision will require the Hospital to support and monitor Mr. Villanueva’s current progress and demonstration of global insight in the hopes that, at the next Review Board hearing, the Hospital and parties will be in a position to recommend a form of discharge.

24. The Board is convinced accordingly that Mr. Villanueva continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition as sought is necessary to ensure the safety of the public, to ensure that his own mental health and other needs are met and is appropriate having regard to the ultimate objective of Mr. Villanueva’s reintegration into the community.

25. An order will issue accordingly.

26. The Board expresses its encouragement to Mr. Villanueva and congratulates him on a positive year. It also expresses its thanks to all who assisted in this hearing.

DATED this 29^th^ day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

D. Sandor

Legal Member

____________________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board