Re: Andrew Michael Fletcher
ORB File No: 7775
Hearing held on: Monday November 24, 2025
Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. T. Wilkie Dr. M. Kalia Mr. G. Beasley Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Andrew Michael Fletcher Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Pytyck
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 30, 2025)
Introduction
On September 3, 2020, Andrew Michael Fletcher was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of mischief not exceeding $5000 contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated November 21, 2024 ordering that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital), or in the discretion of the person in charge, transferred to a General Unit of the Hospital, should the person in charge conclude that his condition has clinically improved to the extent justifying such transfer with privileges up to and including residence in the community in approved accommodation.
On Monday, November 24, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Fletcher’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Fletcher continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Dr. Pytyck on behalf of the Hospital indicated that it was the position of the Hospital that Mr. Fletcher continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the current detention order should be maintained with the only change being varying current Hybrid Detention Order to a Detention Order on the Forensic Service of the Hospital.
Counsel for the Attorney General indicated that she would likely be supporting the Hospital position but wished to reserve her position pending hearing the evidence, in particular with respect to the appropriateness of the privilege of community living.
Counsel for Mr. Fletcher supported the Hospital recommendation and specifically conceded the issue of significant threat.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated November 5, 2025 and the oral evidence of Dr. Pytyck, Mr. Fletcher’s most responsible physician.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Fletcher continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the only change being varying in the current hybrid detention order to a detention order at the Forensic Service of the Hospital.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence as summarized in the last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:
On June 30, 2019, Mr. Fletcher was sitting on a bench in Oshawa and smoking marijuana. He noticed a woman sitting in a car nearby and perceived that she had wronged him in some fashion. He reported feeling threatened and angry and decided to “scare her, terrify her.” He jumped on to the roof of her car, causing extensive damage to the roof and the rear window to shatter. He reported that he “jumped up as high as I could” in order to scare the woman in the vehicle. He further stated that an “evil spirit” possessed him to behave in the way that he did, and that this was the action of “not a man in his right mind.” He said that he was happy because she started crying.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Fletcher was 46 years of age and was born and raised in Toronto. His mother passed away in 1998 due to bone marrow cancer. His father is a retired civil engineer currently living in Whitby. Mr. Fletcher is the elder in a sibline of two with a younger sister.
Mr. Fletcher indicates that he began to develop a variety of issues beginning around the age of 11. He ran away from home three or four times, skipped school about twice a month and began sneaking out at night when he was 12. He had “a lot” of fistfights as a child and was suspended from school several times in grade 7 after incidents including hitting a teacher and grabbing girls. He reports that he managed to complete grade 9 with barely passing grades but was “in open custody” in grade 10 and made the honour role. He was three credits short of graduating when he dropped out of school at age 19. Mr. Fletcher has a spotty employment record. He advises that the longest he ever worked at any job was six months before either quitting or being fired.
Substance Use History
- Mr. Fletcher began drinking alcohol at the age of 15 with friends and sometimes either attended school drunk or skipped school to drink. In terms of substance use, he also indicates that he began using marijuana at the age of 15 but quit nine months prior to his criminal responsibility assessment. He reported that he has tried “everything” including magic mushrooms methamphetamine, crack cocaine, heroin, hashish, ecstasy, synthetic marijuana, opium and ‘liquid acid’.
Legal History:
Mr. Fletcher reports that he incurred 15 criminal findings of guilt as a youth mostly for theft and robbery. In January 2015 Mr. Fletcher was convicted of obstructing a peace officer and assault causing bodily harm and after being given credit for the equivalent of 327 days presentence custody received a suspended sentence and probation. In December 2015 he was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and after receiving credit for 96 days of pre-trial custody was placed on probation for a period of three years along with a weapons prohibition for five years.
Mr. Fletcher was charged with causing a disturbance and obstructing a peace officer in 2007 which charges were stayed. Charges of assault, mischief under, criminal harassment, uttering threats, fail to appear and fail to comply were withdrawn in 2015.
At the time of his criminal responsibility assessment, Mr. Fletcher was also facing charges of impaired driving and failing to comply with recognizance (x2). Those charges were withdrawn prior to his NCR finding.
Psychiatric History
- Documents suggest that Mr. Fletcher’ first psychiatric admission was in May 2008 when he was admitted to hospital after assaulting his father at their home. It was noted on admission that he had been nonadherent to medication and reportedly broke the wrist of an emergency medical service staff member during his apprehension. Subsequent to that admission he was admitted to hospital with respect to mental health issues on over 20 occasions prior to the Index Offence, often after acting out with physical and/or verbal aggression in the community.
Current Diagnosis
- Although the Hospital Report indicates Mr. Fletcher’s current diagnoses were:
Schizophrenia, acute decompensation
Cannabis use disorder, Severe in remission in a controlled environment
Cocaine use disorder, Moderate in remission in a controlled environment
Antisocial personality disorder in remission
- Dr. Pytyck advised that the diagnoses had been updated and that his current diagnoses were:
Schizophrenia
Cannabis use disorder, Severe in remission in a controlled environment
Cocaine use disorder
Antisocial personality traits
Evidence of Dr. Pytyck
- Dr. Pytyck indicated that:
She had been Mr. Fletcher’s most responsible physician since April 2025 when he was transferred from a secure to a general unit. By way of an update to the Hospital Report she advised that the treatment team is currently trying to reduce the frequency of his IM medication but not the total amount due to a buildup of scar tissue in the area of the injections. There has been an increase in psychotic symptoms since the change and the treatment team was considering the addition of another antipsychotic medication including a possible return to clozapine.
Although Mr. Fletcher was treatment compliant, he continued to experience residual symptoms of his illness and that his illness was treatment resistant. He also has little insight into the connection between his symptoms and his illness, continuing to believe that many of the symptoms were “real”.
Although Mr. Fletcher was eligible for indirectly supervised passes on hospital and grounds, he has refused to exercise that privilege often giving bizarre reasons for its refusal. Over the reporting year Mr. Fletcher tested positive for cocaine use on one occasion.
In her opinion significant threat to the safety of the public was clearly made out in that absent supervision of the Board, Mr. Fletcher which would likely cease treatment and return to the use of substances resulting in decompensation and a return to aggressive behaviour similar to that in the past.
Retaining the community living privilege in his disposition would give Mr. Fletcher both something to work towards and also allow the treatment team to begin to make referrals to potential community residences when Mr. Fletcher’s mental state stabilized. The requirement that a community residence be supervised would restrict the treatment team’s flexibility in terms seeking appropriate residences. There would be no consideration of a referral until such time as the Hospital was satisfied that a discharge into the community did not put the public at risk and discharge would be only to a residence that the team was satisfied met both Mr. Fletcher’s needs and addressed his risk.
Final Positions of the Parties
The Hospital and counsel for Mr. Fletcher maintained their initial positions that a continuation of the current detention order was appropriate with the only change being varying the current hybrid order to one on the Forensic Services.
Counsel for the Attorney General advised that having heard the evidence, she was now joining the other parties in their recommendation save and except that, in her submission, the term providing for community residence should be amended to include a requirement that the any residence be “supervised”.
Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence clearly establishes that Mr. Fletcher continues to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Fletcher suffers from a treatment resistant mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as antisocial personality traits and a long history of acting out aggressively in the community when unwell. Despite medication adherence he continues to experience symptoms of his illness. He has little insight into symptoms of his illness, continuing to believe that some of them are real, or the need for treatment as well as the potential impact on his mental health of the use of substances and he has used cocaine while on the hospital unit.
Absent supervision of the Board, it is highly likely that Mr. Fletcher would cease treatment and return to the use of substances. The Board echoes the opinion of the treatment team expressed in the Hospital Report that in those circumstances:
He would deteriorate rapidly and be at a high risk of engaging in violent acts with the potential to cause substantive harm to individuals around him in the context of the paranoia, auditory hallucinations and disorganization of thought and behaviour.
Analysis and Conclusion Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The Board also finds that the evidence clearly supports a finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order to direct the detention on the Forensic Service. Mr. Fletcher has no place to live in the community and no significant supports in the community to provide for follow-up psychiatric treatment. There is no air of reality to consideration of a conditional discharge.
With respect to the recommendation by counsel for the Attorney General that in the community residence be supervised, the Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Pytyk that a requirement in the disposition that a community residence be supervised would restrict the treatment team’s flexibility in seeking appropriate residences and that the Hospital would only consider discharge to a residence that the treatment team was satisfied met both Mr. Fletcher’s needs and addressed his risk.
The Board also notes that the Guide to The Interpretation of Ontario Review Board Disposition Orders indicates that a supervised residence is:
A residence that has staff supervision throughout the course of the day (but not necessarily residence staff supervision 24/7
and adding a requirement that any residence have staff supervision throughout the course of the day would significantly restrict the options available to the hospital to find an appropriate residence.
- Taking into account the requirement that any disposition must be the least onerous and least restrictive that both protects the public and meets the patient’s needs and accepting the evidence that the hospital would only approve a residence which met the needs to address risk as well as meet Mr. Fletcher’s needs, the Board finds that adding an additional requirement that any community residence for Mr. Fletcher be supervised is not necessary and appropriate.
DATED this 30th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board