Re: Simeon Vrantsidis
ORB File No: 8565
Hearing held on: Thursday, November 27, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. S. Simpson Dr. M. Kalia Mr. G. Beasley Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Simeon Vrantsidis Counsel: Mr. J. Chapnick
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. K. De Freitas
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated: December 31, 2025)
Introduction
On May 17 2024, Simeon Vrantsidis was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of fraud under $5000 and operating a motor vehicle while prohibited, both contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated December 6, 2024 ordering that he be detained at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital or Ontario Shores) with privileges up to and including passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community within a 150 km radius of the Hospital indirectly supervised.
On Thursday, November 27 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Vrantsidis’ disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Vrantsidis was not present at the hearing and his counsel advised that he had spoken to Mr. Vrantsidis the previous day and he had confirmed he did not wish to attend the hearing. Dr. De Freitas also indicated that she was also aware that Mr. Vrantsidis did not wish to attend the hearing. On consent the Board ordered pursuant to section 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code that the hearing proceed in the patient’s absence.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Vrantsidis continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least restrictive and least onerous taking into account the factors set out in section 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. De Freitas for the Hospital indicated that it was the position of the Hospital that Mr. Vrantsidis continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order without change.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.
Counsel for Mr. Vrantsidis advised that he supported the Hospital position save and except that in his submission the prohibition from driving was no longer necessary and appropriate and should be deleted from the disposition.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. De Freitas, Mr. Vrantsidis’ attending psychiatrist.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Vrantsidis 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 without change.
Index Offences:
- The allegations surrounding the index charges as summarized in the last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows :
The transcript of the court proceedings reveals the resolution of the charges agreed between Crown and defence counsel at the trial. The NCR finding was made on consent in relation to the index offences. Several other charges, including uttering a threat to cause death to Christine Alexander, were withdrawn. It was agreed between counsel that the Crown would nevertheless read out the facts of the death threat charge in addition to the direct circumstances of only one of the index offences (operating the vehicle), as Mr. Vrantsidis’ mother no longer wished to be named as a complainant for the charge of fraud. The agreed facts are reproduced in the Hospital Report, and are as follows:
On October 9, 2023, Mr. Vrantsidis uttered death threats to Christine Alexander by mentioning he would snap her neck, chop her into pieces and burn her. Mr. Vrantsidis proceeded to take rope, cans of butane, a shovel, and a sledgehammer from his mother’s residence and left in her vehicle which was reported as stolen.
Mr. Vrantsidis’ mother, Ms. Menka Vrantsidis contacted police to report that her son, Mr. Vrantsidis had stolen her vehicle and her wallet from her purse.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
As of the date of the hearing Mr. Vrantsidis was 44 years of age and is the second youngest in a sibline of six. His mother describes the family home as being very chaotic and noted that her son witnessed ongoing domestic violence in the form of physical and emotional abuse. His parents separated when he was 10 years of age.
After his parents separation, Mr. Vrantsidis lived with his mother until he was twelve when he was arrested after having caused extensive damage to the home. He subsequently lived with his father. His mother reports that as he aged, he became more prone to violence and that “when he drinks it gets worse.”
Mr. Vrantsidis failed most of his courses in grade 10 and quit school when he was sixteen. He returned to school when he was nineteen and completed his high school credits. He subsequently attended York University briefly and eventually graduated from an electricians program at George Brown College. He then completed an electrician apprenticeship in 2016 and worked as an electrician for a number of companies but was frequently terminated.
Substance Use History
Mr. Vrantsidis began using alcohol when he was 16 years old and at times would be truant from school in order to use alcohol. As an adult he indicated that he would drink until he felt that it was unhealthy stop and then recommence drinking. His longest period of abstinence was from 2000 to 2005. He completed an inpatient rehabilitation program for alcohol use in 2013. He reports that he was definitely inebriated at the time of the index offences.
Mr. Vrantsidis’ mother reported that he had a long history of problematic alcohol use and had lost a job due to alcohol consumption. She also reported that after his release from custody 2014 and inability to have unsupervised contact with his children he became hopeless and preoccupied with alcohol. He would begin drinking in the morning, drink all day and hide alcohol all over the house.
Mr. Vrantsidis reports that he started smoking cannabis when he was 16 years old and his use progressed to smoking one joint a week until he was 19 years old. He described his more recent use as occasional and that one joint would last him up to a month. He stated that his last use was several weeks prior to the index offences and does not believe that he had any issues with cannabis use as it was “not a big part of his life” and would go for years without using.
Legal History:
Mr. Vrantsidis has a criminal record commencing in 2002 including convictions for attempt to commit an indictable offence, theft under, possession of property obtained by crime under $5000, fail to comply with a recognizance, fail to attend Court, fail to comply with a probation order, uttering threats, assault, assault causing bodily harm, impaired operation of a motor vehicle, and driving while suspended.
In addition, Mr. Vrantsidis was found NCR with respect to a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle in December 2015 and was under the auspices of the Board until January 2019 when he was granted an absolute discharge.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Vrantsidis’ first psychiatric admission to hospital with respect to mental health related issues was in 2013 when he was admitted to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint) for assessments with respect to his fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility on charges of attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon while prohibited. He was diagnosed with Conduct Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. However, he was found fit to stand trial and a defence of NCR was found not to be supported. He was sentenced to a provincial term and released from custody in 2014.
Mr. Vrantsidis’ next admission to hospital with respect to mental health related issues was in 2015 when he was admitted to Ontario Shores for an assessment of his fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility with respect to a charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia, presenting with symptoms including delusional thought content of being a prophet, feeling compelled to act on messages he was receiving from God, and experiencing auditory hallucinations. He was also diagnosed with severe alcohol use disorder and although concerns were raised with respect to personality disorders such as narcissistic and paranoid no formal diagnosis was made. He was found NCR and remained under the jurisdiction of the Board until he received an absolute discharge in 2019. He later disclosed that he had discontinued medications in 2016 and feigned good adherence with treatment.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Vrantsidis’ current diagnoses are:
- Schizoaffective Disorder
- Alcohol Use Disorder
Evidence of Dr. De Freitas
Dr. De Freitas indicated that, as the issues of significant threat and necessary and appropriate disposition were not being contested and the position of the Hospital with respect to those issues was set out in the Hospital Report, she would only address the issue of whether the driving prohibition should be removed from the disposition but answer any questions from the parties or the panel. She indicated that it was the position of the Hospital that the condition should remain. She noted that Mr. Vrantsidis suffered from a major mental illness as well as a severe alcohol use disorder and that the evidence supported a conclusion that when he consumed alcohol there was a higher risk of aggressive behaviour.
Dr. De Freitas noted that Mr. Vrantsidis had done nothing to reduce his risk of returning to the use of alcohol and he had a history of operating motor vehicles both while under the influence of alcohol as well as in a dangerous manner. It was her understanding that he was currently prohibited from driving and that if she became aware of a request by him to have his license reinstated, she would have to report his untreated alcohol use disorder to the Ministry of Transportation.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Vrantsidis, Dr. De Freitas stated that although Mr. Vrantsidis can be pleasant at times he refuses to open up to the treatment team and is not prepared to trust anyone. She also indicated that, in her opinion, the removal of the driving prohibition would not act as a “carrot” to encourage him to more cooperation.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. De Freitas stated that although there were some uncorroborated suggestions that Mr. Vrantsidis had experienced head injuries, the treatment team has not pursued that matter as he would not be prepared to cooperate in any form of cognitive assessment.
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 Mr. Vrantsidis continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a long-standing untreated major mental illness as well as a severe alcohol use disorder. He has a history of acting out with both physical and verbal aggression resulting in physical and psychological harm to members of the community particularly when under the influence of alcohol. The recent HCR – 20V3 assessment potential re-offence scenario states:
According to the HCR-20V3 manual, a potential re-offence scenario “is not a prediction about what will happen; rather, it is a projection about what could happen” (pg. 57). With this in mind, a plausible future re-offence scenario for Mr. Vrantsidis under a continuation of a Detention Order with a move to a less secure unit, includes the following: as the duration without treatment lengthens, Mr. Vrantsidis may experience psychotic or affective (i.e., manic) symptoms, despite his attempts to present as asymptomatic. This may include increasingly compelling guidance to perform certain behaviours (e.g., elopement, engaging in offending behaviour to provide religious assistance to those he identifies in need) or exhibit increasingly unprovoked agitation/aggression (e.g., uttering threats, intimidation/staring/posturing), particularly when his demands are not met, he perceives a personal threat, or he is frustrated by rules or expectations. Mr. Vrantsidis’ tolerance for co-peers may also diminish, particularly those that may be louder, more intrusive/provocative, or espouse religious beliefs that are contrary to his. If Mr. Vrantsidis accesses substances, particularly alcohol, his agitation and anger would significantly amplify, as would violence risk. Verbal aggression and property destruction may be initial indicators of decompensation and/or intoxication for Mr. Vrantsidis. Without an effective and expedient risk mitigation response, this would progress to physical aggression, which could result in substantive harm to others given Mr. Vrantsidis’ penchant for weight training and knowledge of various martial arts. Targets of aggression would include those in his vicinity whom he is frustrated with (e.g., co-peers) or is “guided” towards targeting.
Analysis and Conclusion Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
As noted above Mr. Vrantsidis suffers from a long-standing untreated major mental illness and a severe alcohol use disorder. He currently has no insight into his mental illness, need for medication or the impact of alcohol use on his mental health. Absent careful supervision, there is a significant risk of a return of psychotic symptoms resulting in an increase in risk of causing physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public. He currently has no residence available to him in the community and given his lack of engagement with the treatment team, it is highly unlikely that he would be cooperative with a request to return to hospital if in the community. There is clearly no air of reality to consideration of a conditional discharge.
With respect to the request that the current prohibition from operating a motor vehicle be deleted from the disposition, the Board finds that the deletion of that term would result in an increase of risk of harm to the public. Mr. Vrantsidis has a history of operating motor vehicles in a dangerous manner putting the public at risk as well as operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol, again putting the public at risk. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. De Freitas that there is a substantial risk of a return to the consumption of alcohol should Mr. Vrantsidis have an opportunity to do so and that, should he attempt to reinstate his driver’s license, she would have a duty to report his untreated alcohol use disorder to the Ministry. In all the circumstances the prohibition from operating a motor vehicle is clearly necessary and appropriate.
DATED this 31st day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow Alternate Chairperson
“____________________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board