Re: Jeffrey J. Townsend, 2025 CanLII 135640

Ontario Review Board

Re: Jeffrey J. Townsend

ORB File No: 8753

Hearing held on: Friday November 7, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(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: Jeffrey Townsend Counsel: Mr. S. Gehl

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

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 30, 2025)

Introduction:

1On March 26, 2025, Jeffrey Townsend was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two counts of arson with disregard to human life and causing damage to property contrary to sections 433(a) and 434 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The court did not make a disposition but referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.

2On November 7, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened an initial hearing pursuant to section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Townsend was present at the hearing represented by his lawyer Mr. S. Gehl.

3Several exhibits were entered into evidence at the hearing’s outset. These included the Notice of Hearing, a Pre-Hearing Conference Report, the Synopsis of the index offence, Mr. Townsend’s criminal record, the Information Sheet, the NCR Assessment relied upon by the referring court and a Risk Assessment dated October 20, 2025, completed by Dr. Ardani, Mr. Townsend’s treating psychiatrist. That Risk Assessment was marked as Exhibit 8.

4Also received into evidence was an update to the Risk Assessment, dated October 31, 2025 (which was marked as Exhibit 9), and an addendum dated November 5, 2025 (which was marked as Exhibit 10). Both of these were also prepared by Dr. Ardani.

5The parties were canvassed for initial positions. The Hospital’s lawyer, Ms. Zamprogna expressed the position that Mr. Townsend continued to represent a 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 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. She further expressed the position that it was necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, for Mr. Townsend to continue to be the subject of a detention disposition with privileges including that of living in the community of south or southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital.

6Mr. Rows, lawyer and representative of the Attorney General joined the Hospital on all issues as did Mr. Townsend’s lawyer, Mr. Gehl.

7For the reasons that follow, the Board has determined that Mr. Townsend does represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition as sought is necessary and appropriate to manage his risk, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Evidence at the hearing

8While the Board had the benefit of all of the documents forming exhibits as mentioned above, Exhibits 8, 9 and 10 were of the most significance for the purposes of this hearing. It also benefitted from the viva voce evidence offered by Dr. Ardani.

Index Offence

9Turning first to the exhibits, Exhibit 8 includes a recitation of the circumstances of the index offences. It explains that on May 24, 2024 at approximately 4:42 PM, a male later identified as Jeffrey Townsend entered the law office of Peter McSherry located at 343 Waterloo Avenue in Cambridge, Ontario. Jeffrey Townsend had once been represented by Mr. McSherry in a wrongful dismissal claim brought against Jeffrey Townsend’s former employer Cascade Canada. Mr. Townsend proceeded to pour liquid out of a gasoline can onto the floor before lighting it causing individuals in the office to flee. Mr. Townsend also fled the office, throwing the gasoline can into a bush. The damage to the office building was extensive. Mr. Townsend was later identified, arrested and charged.

Personal History

10Mr. Townsend was born in Guelph, Ontario. Exhibit 8 explains that he had a troubled childhood that included exposure to intimate partner violence suffered by his mother and physical abuse at the hands of one of her partners who was subsequently arrested and charged with sexual abuse of one of Mr. Townsend’s brothers. Mr. Townsend and his siblings spent a lengthy period of time in foster care, being moved to approximately 5 different foster homes between the ages of seven and sixteen. Exhibit 9 provides further details relative to Mr. Townsend’s troubled childhood. He, as well as his siblings, all demonstrated apparent fascination with matches and fires while in foster care. The neglect they occasioned at the hands of their parents was significant.

11Mr. Townsend entered into a common-law relationship with Sarah Crawford who would become his wife of five years. The 20-year total relationship ended in divorce. Mr. Townsend and Ms. Crawford have one child of the relationship – Damon, who is on the autism spectrum and requires special assistance. Mr. Townsend continues to enjoy a supportive relationship with Ms. Crawford who acted as one of his sureties following the commission of the index offences. Mr. Townsend is otherwise disconnected from all members of his immediate family. Mr. Townsend also enjoys the support of his current partner “Becky” who joined Ms. Crawford in standing as Mr. Townsend’s surety following the index offences.

12Mr. Townsend completed high school as an adult. He has described himself as “inattentive” and “hyperactive” and indicated he was not an ideal student as an adolescent. He socialized with negative peers, engaged in the use of substances – primarily marijuana – and engaged in criminal activity starting when he was approximately 12. As an adult however, he stabilized, began working at Cascade – a factory that manufactures forks for forklifts – and took on a managerial role. He was dismissed from that role as a result of a consensual relationship with a co-worker and thereafter worked several low-wage jobs. He is currently unemployed and receiving ODSP.

13Mr. Townsend’s history of involvement with the criminal justice system is set out in Exhibit 8. It began in 1992 while he was still a youth and includes property offences (thefts and possessions of property obtained by crime), offences against the administration of justice, and one count of assault from 2011.

Psychiatric History

14Exhibits 8 and 9 together provide a detailed summary of Mr. Townsend’s struggles with major mental illness. As per his self-report, he carried a historical diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. He first became involved with the Canadian Mental Health Association in February 1991 on a referral from his worker with the Children’s Aid Society because of his fascination with matches and fire. As an adult he has been the subject of several admissions to hospital following which he received diagnoses of adjustment disorder, major depressive disorder (complicated by situational stressors such as unemployment and divorce), and psychotic disorder. His symptoms have included suicidality, paranoia, anxiety, and persecutory delusions. He has struggled with treatment compliance and substance use including cannabis, methamphetamines and alcohol. Some of the difficulties with treatment compliance have been attributed to short and long-term memory problems. When assessed by an occupational therapist, he scored 15/30 on a brief neurocognitive screening measure (Montreal Cognitive Assessment- MoCA), which is suggestive of significant cognitive impairment. He showed deficits in the areas of attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall and orientation.

15Exhibit 9 explains that the symptoms of Mr. Townsend’s major mental illness worsened in 2022 following the loss of a civil lawsuit he had started against his employer. In October 2022, Mr. Townsend was noncompliant with his recommended oral antipsychotic medications and experienced increasing fixation on the loss of his civil lawsuit against a former employer. He experienced suicidal and violent ideations. He threatened suicide by overdose and to kill other people with a hatchet. He specifically expressed an intention of targeting lawyers and former employers that he believed were responsible for his situation. This led to an involuntary admission to hospital on a Form 1.

16Mr. Townsend was in receipt of mental health supports in the community prior to the commission of the index offence in May 2024. One week prior to the index offence he met with Dr. Mohammed and denied suicidal or homicidal ideas. He met with a social worker and described high levels of financial stress that same day and was discharged home. When arrested though for the arson committed a little more than one week later, Mr. Townsend was clearly psychotic.

17Since that time, Mr. Townsend has worked with mental health supports in the community. He was transitioned to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic as a result of his difficulties remembering to take his oral medication and received extensive support from psychiatrists, counsellors, nursing staff and an occupational therapist. In spite of compliance with his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, Mr. Townsend experienced breakthrough symptoms of anxiety and paranoia. Meanwhile, Mr. Townsend maintained reports that he could control his risk behaviours when on medications.

18According to Exhibits 8 and 9, Mr. Townsend has abstained from the use of methamphetamine since 2022 and from the use of alcohol since his release from Maplehurst Correctional Complex in July 2024. He has worked with the CMHA Peer Support Group and a counsellor to strengthen strategies to help him manage his anxiety. While he has at times expressed remorse and shame associated with the index offence as well as his past substance use, delusional beliefs and psychotic behaviours, this insight has not been consistent. In December 2024, in the space of two weeks he varied from expression of insight to fixation again on his civil lawsuit and the disclosure of new persecutory beliefs and delusions. In January 2025, he disclosed daily cannabis use in spite of psychoeducation on the risks that substance in particular poses to his major mental illness. He has experienced increased anxiety in the context of continued cannabis use and has shown decreased insight into his symptoms. He has lacked motivation and ability to complete daily tasks. His fixation on his civil lawsuit has continued, posing an ongoing stressor for both Mr. Townsend and his personal supports.

19Exhibit 10 provided further helpful information from the perspective of Ms. Sarah Crawford (Mr. Townsend’s spouse and one of the sureties mentioned above). Ms. Crawford confirmed that Mr. Townsend’s preoccupation with the civil lawsuit was a source of stress with him. She mentioned possibilities that the civil suit could be resolved and that an offer had been received from the company’s lawyer. She explained that Mr. Townsend has historically required significant supports to function in any employment capacity. According to Ms. Crawford, this could explain the fact that Mr. Townsend was able to maintain employment for as long as he did in the face of a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder diagnosis and the cognitive limitations Mr. Townsend was assessed as having.

20Mr. Townsend underwent a Mental Status Examination on October 14, 2025. The results of this examination are found on page 22 of Exhibit 8. By that time, Mr. Townsend had developed fair insight into his mental disorder and need for medications. He was however unable to describe the psychotic features he experienced around the time of the index offence. He was aware that stimulant use would lead to his experiencing further delusions. The conclusion drawn in Exhibit 8 from this examination is that Mr. Townsend is able to reside in the community safely in circumstances where he continues to comply with treatment, abstain from stimulants and receive support from his sureties.

[21] In his evidence, Dr. Ardani confirmed Mr. Townsend’s diagnoses:

• Unspecified schizophrenia
• Unspecified psychosis
• Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (by history), and
• Substance Use Disorder.

Risk Assessment

22Exhibit 8 includes a Risk Assessment beginning at page 23 employing the HCR-20 (version 3), a clinical checklist for assessing risk of violence. Neither the appropriateness nor the methodology employed while undertaking this assessment were brought into question before this panel. In terms of clinical items, the Risk Assessment notes that Mr. Townsend has had recent problems with insight that is partially present. He is unable to explain what mental disorder he suffers from or elaborate on the circumstances that led to the index offence. He has not been able to identify triggers that may play a role in experiencing decompensation. While he has remained compliant since the commission of the index offence. with recommended antipsychotic medications, he has underdeveloped insight into how medications could help the management of his mental disorder. He has had recent problems with symptoms of a major mental disorder and continues to experience instability associated with inattentiveness, difficulty concentrating and restlessness. He currently resides with one of his sureties who is also an intimate partner. The Risk Assessment notes that his surety was unable to mitigate risk in the past, leading to the conclusion that Mr. Townsend needs support to maintain treatment, monitor for symptoms and encourage him in the practice of appropriate coping strategies during times of stress.

23The HCR-20 (Version 3) was employed in connection with the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk, another tool specifically developed for the assessment of protective factors. The “SAPROF” confirmed that while Mr. Townsend’s insight needs to improve, it does exist to some level on the issue of his need for antipsychotic medication. He has some community supports, including that offered by the CMHA.

24In conclusion, the Risk Assessment concludes that Mr. Townsend has few to no internal protective factors. External protective factors were insufficient to mitigate the risk to public safety at the time of the index offence. There is a moderate to high likelihood that Mr. Townsend would recommit serious criminal offences absent a detention disposition. If under a detention disposition, that risk is assessed as “low.” Mr. Townsend continues to use cannabis on a regular basis in spite of psychoeducation and recommendation that he abstain from that substance. Absent a disposition it is likely that he would increasingly turn to substances to manage stressors, risking a further impairment of his cognitive functioning and likely precipitation of paranoid ideations. In such a state, he would likely perceive innocent stimuli as threatening and respond aggressively as he did in the committing the index offence.

Update to the panel

25In his viva voce evidence, Dr. Ardani adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. He testified that Mr. Townsend has not manifest the primary symptoms of psychosis for the last 9 months. He confirmed Mr. Townsend’s insight remains partial, particularly with regard to symptoms when experiencing them. Dr. Ardani noted that this is Mr. Townsend’s initial hearing following his NCR finding and as a result more time is needed to determine the extent of Mr. Townsend’s transparency with the treatment team. But at this point, Mr. Townsend is cooperative and, outside of his continued use of cannabis, compliant with the treatment team’s recommendations. Dr. Ardani also confirmed the possibility of further adjustments to Mr. Townsend’s antipsychotic medications over the course of the coming year.

26Dr. Ardani highlighted the risks associated with Mr. Townsend’s historic use of stimulants and his ongoing use of cannabis. This remains a source of concern for the next review period. He testified that in the past Mr. Townsend experienced breakthrough symptoms when using cannabis. He also expressed concern with Mr. Townsend’s own report of weekly alcohol use. Dr. Ardani also expressed worry over the fact that Mr. Townsend’s current relationship is relatively new – less than 2 years in duration, leading to worry that, should that relationship fail, Mr. Townsend would require significant supports to deal with the resultant stressors. Though Dr. Ardani had not originally sought it, he was not opposed to a condition that Mr. Townsend not possess any incendiary devices except as necessary when smoking cigarettes. Mr. Townsend and his lawyer had an opportunity to discuss this condition and indicated their consent to the same, given the nature of the index offences and Mr. Townsend’s history.

Submissions

27At the end of the hearing the parties renewed their submissions as expressed at the outset. All agreed that Mr. Townsend continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public. Ms. Zamprogna, speaking for the Hospital, emphasized that while Mr. Townsend’s psychotic symptoms were under control, he had a history of noncompliance with treatment, of struggles with substance use and with underdeveloped insight. All of these have resulted in rapid decompensation that was not adequately answered by the provisions of the Mental Health Act. She explained that while the Hospital has no intention of admitting Mr. Townsend, it still needs to be able to respond quickly to initial signs of deterioration, particularly if deterioration is occurring in a context of stress associated with Mr. Townsend’s relationships or housing. As the parties were making their submissions, Mr. Townsend added that his urine had been tested randomly on 3 occasions leading to this hearing, with the results coming back negative for all substances on those tests. His statement did not give rise to any further evidence or questions.

Analysis and conclusion

28Notwithstanding the joint submission, the Board carefully considered the issue of significant threat. In our view, Mr. Townsend does represent a 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 described in Winko. The threat posed by Mr. Townsend is one of serious criminality. It is driven by the seriousness of the index offence coupled with a troubling criminal record and history of difficulty while in the care of the Children’s Aid Society. The threat of significant physical and psychological harm flowing from future criminal conduct also flows from the index offence. It also finds its grounding in the violent ideations experienced by Mr. Townsend when decompensating as a result of stress, noncompliance with medication and substance use. In our view, the risk is not speculative. Mr. Townsend’s insight is partial, he continues to experience stress associated with his civil suit, he struggles with cognitive limitations and anxiety and though he does have some community and social supports in place, these were insufficient to protect the public from the commission of a very serious index offence the nature of which seems to have some connection to childhood responses to trauma.

29The Board also considered whether any lesser disposition than that of a detention order would be sufficient to manage the risk inherent in the threshold finding. In our view, a detention disposition is necessary. While Mr. Townsend is currently cooperative with the treatment team, is assiduous with regard to his antipsychotic medications and is supported by both his current and his former spouse, he has a history of falling away from recommended treatment and, when treatment compliant, has been the victim of breakthrough psychotic symptoms. His current medications, while effective, are not without side-effects such that Dr. Ardani indicated that medication changes and adjustments are a possibility over the course of the next reporting period. In Mr. Townsend’s circumstances, where stressors similar to those extant at the time of the index offence persist in a context of historic rapid return of psychotic symptoms, the likelihood of medication adjustment warrants a disposition that permits the Hospital to respond quickly to any return of symptoms of major mental illness.

30Mr. Townsend’s continued use of substances, including cannabis and alcohol, is a concern. Historically, his use of cannabis, alcohol and/or stimulants has been associated with psychotic symptoms. Substances played a role in the events leading up to the commission of the index offence. In spite of education, Mr. Townsend has, at least until recently, continued to use alcohol weekly and cannabis daily. While he has indicated that he has not used either to the point of impairment, his assertion in this regard cannot be taken with any degree of certainty. Mr. Townsend has had difficulties recognizing the symptoms of his major mental illness and suffers from cognitive limitations that worsen when under the influence of any substances. The decrease in cognitive functioning and inhibition engendered by his use of any intoxicants, including alcohol and cannabis, in our view exposes the public to a very real reoffence scenario, particularly if those substances are used as part of a coping mechanism to manage the stressors he continues to face.

31As a result, the Board concludes that Mr. Townsend continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and concludes that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate at this time to manage that risk. An order will issue accordingly.

32The Board thanks all who participated in this hearing and encourages Mr. Townsend in his work with the treatment team over the course of the next review period.