Re Romaine Richards, 2025 CanLII 135647

Re: Romaine Richards

ORB File Nos: 5663-7577

Hearing held on: Friday, November 28, 2025

Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. S. Chatterjee

Dr. M. Kalia

Mr. G. Beasley

Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Romaine Richards

Counsel: Mr. M. Brillinger

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Pearce

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 31, 2025)

Introduction

1. On July 26, 2010, Romaine Richards was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, robbery using threats of violence and aggravated assault, all contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Richards was also found not criminally responsible on July 16, 2019 on charges of assault with a weapon (x2), aggravated assault (x2), possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, carrying a concealed weapon, and breaking and entering all contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated November 27, 2024 ordering that he be detained at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. On November 28, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Richards disposition pursuant to section 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Richards was present at the hearing and represented by counsel Mr. Brillinger.

3. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Richards 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

4. 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. Pearce for the Hospital indicated that it was the position of the Hospital that Mr. Richards continued to represent 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.

5. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.

6. Counsel for Mr. Richards submitted that his client no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly was entitled to be absolutely discharged.

Evidence at the hearing

7. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, the oral evidence of Dr. Pearce, Mr. Richards’ most responsible physician and the oral evidence of Mr. Richards.

Findings:

8. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Richards 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:

9. The allegations surrounding the index charges as summarized in the last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:

Index Offences 2010

On Monday, May 10, 2010, Mr. Richards attended the “Liquidation World” location and stole items from the store. He was confronted by the victim, Renee Bleakley, who worked at the store and stabbed her with a pair of scissors. She suffered nine puncture wounds to her arms, shoulders, wrist and fingers.

On May 11, 2010, police were call to the home he lived in with his grandmother. His grandmother was calling the crisis centre trying to find him help and Mr. Richards kicked in her bedroom door causing her to flee the house. Having found that Mr. Richards was wanted for the robbery at the Liquidation World, police contacted nearby businesses and determined that Mr. Richards matched the description of a shoplifter at No Frills, and Shopper’s Drug Mart.

Index Offences 2019

On January 27, 2019, Ms. Jenna Diotte and Mr. Lamar Green were in her apartment at the same building where Mr. Richards lived. Mr. Richards knocked on Ms. Diotte’s apartment door and stabbed Ms. Diotte in the lower left abdomen with a kitchen knife he had brought with him. When Mr. Green attempted to intervene, Mr. Richards charged at Mr. Green with the knife, a physical alteration ensued and Mr. Richards stabbed Mr. Green several times. When Mr. Green fled into the hallway Mr. Richards followed from the apartment, Mr. Green fell and Mr. Green stabbed him in the back. Mr. Green fled the building and fell down the stairs on his way out. Injuries sustained by the victims were non-life threatening and consisted of a stab wound in her left lower abdomen for Ms. Diotte which damaged her abdominal cavity and for Mr. Green, eight stab wounds on his back, arms and legs, a broken rib where a piece of the knife was embedded, and a slight puncture to his right lung.

Count 1: Being Unlawfully in Dwelling House, Sec 349 (1) CCC: Mr. Richards had been living with his mother until she asked him to leave her residence two weeks before the alleged offence. Mr. Richards was homeless after leaving his mother’s residence. He subsequently returned to her residence multiple times and attempted to gain entry into the home. Police were contacted and removed him from the property. On December 18, 2023, his mother returned to her home after discharge from a hospital and found Mr. Richards asleep in her bed. Mr. Richards’ mother asked him to leave her property multiple times and the two argued. Mr. Richards reportedly left the property after his mother phoned the police. His mother reported to police that she was afraid of Mr. Richards. Mr. Richards was located in the community, arrested, and was released on a Form 10, with conditions not to communicate with his mother and not to attend her property.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

10. As of the date of the hearing Mr. Richards was 36 years of age. He was born in Jamaica and came to Canada at the age of five where he was raised by his grandparents. His mental health began to deteriorate when he was in grade 8 and he began to do poorly in school. He began to become concerned about germs stating that “everything gave him germs.” He complained that people were harming him and was suspended from school for fighting. In grade 10 he believed that a schoolteacher was a witch who could read his mind and he left school in grade 11.

Substance Use History

11. Clinical records indicate that Mr. Richards reported using marijuana on a daily basis prior to his first set of index offences.

Legal History:

12. Prior to the index offences in 2010, Mr. Richards had the following youth record:

Date and location

Charge(s)

Sentence

2006-11-06 Oshawa, ON (Youth Court)

(1)Robbery

(2)Carrying a concealed weapon x 2

(3)Theft Under $5000

(4)Fail to Comply with Undertaking

(1)Time served (21 days) & probation 2 yrs

(2) Probation 2 yrs on each chg conc & conc & mandatory prohibition order Sec 51(1) YCJ Act

(3-4) Probation 2 yrs on each chg conc & conc

2007-02-27 Oshawa, ON (Youth Court

(1)Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest

(2)Break Enter & Commit

(3)Fail to Comply with Disposition

(1) Time served (11 days) & probation 18 mos & mandatory discretionary prohibition order (2-3) (2-3) Probation 18 mos on each chg conc & conc

13. He has no adult criminal record.

Psychiatric History Prior to Index Offences

14. Mr. Richards first hospitalization with respect to mental health related issues occurred in 2006 when his grandparents brought him to hospital because they were fearful of him after he became violent and was throwing things at his grandmother. He was voicing delusions of mind-reading, mind control and grandiosity. He thought his teacher was a witch who could read his mind. He was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder type I, currently manic with psychotic features, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. He responded gradually to antipsychotic medication and his psychosis abated and he was discharged. However, his insight into his psychosis was superficial.

15. A few weeks later he was again admitted to hospital on a Form I under the Mental Health Act, exhibiting delusional beliefs including, reporting that he was psychic, could read the thoughts of others and was “superfast.” His compliance with antipsychotic medication had been poor since his last discharge. He was again started on antipsychotic medication and his psychosis went into remission. He was discharged after several weeks with a diagnosis of “psychotic disorder, possibly drug induced.”

16. A few months later he was brought to hospital by police following an episode of aggression towards his uncle. He was admitted as an involuntary patient. He again improved after commencing antipsychotic medication and was again discharged after several weeks with a recommendation for follow-up care. He followed recommended follow-up care for several years and was last seen by a psychiatrist in December 2009 approximately six months prior to the first set of index offences.

Current Diagnosis

17. Mr. Richards’ current diagnoses are:

• Schizophrenia

• Unspecified Personality Disorder

• Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Evidence of Dr. Pearce

18. Dr. Pearce stated that that:

• The paragraph contained at page 99 of the Hospital Report relating to the alleged theft of a cell phone should be deleted in its entirety and not relied upon. Upon review of the records, the treatment team was satisfied that Mr. Richards was not in any way involved with that incident.

• Over the reporting year Mr. Richards had displayed no psychotic symptoms of his illness and had been cooperative with the treatment team.. He had lost his temper a few times but the team was not overly concerned with respect to that. The team had hoped that he would be discharged prior to this hearing but TRHP housing had changed their selection criteria over the reporting year and were now more selective. Prior to accepting patients into their residences, they now wished to see more stability and more effective use of time.

• Mr. Richards had obtained employment but unfortunately lost it. He also had started school full-time but had dropped out. Currently there was little structure in his activities in the community.

• Mr. Richards last discharge had failed and currently there were no other housing options open to him although in the opinion of the treatment team he was ready for discharge. However, upon discharge he would require close supervision as he continues to be prone to impulsivity which compromises safety. He currently has no outpatient support and in the opinion of the treatment team a discharge into the community needs to be careful and cautious.

• Although Mr. Richards had not been accepted into TRHP housing, he had not been taken off the waiting list and, if he can show more stability and more effective use of his time, there is a good chance that he would be accepted into that housing.

• If granted an absolute discharge, Mr. Richards might do well for a few months but is long-term prognosis was not so good. Dr. Pearce based his opinion with respect to significant threat on the lack of follow-up in the community and Mr. Richards’ tendency to make impulsive decisions.

19. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Richards Dr. Pearce stated:

• Mr. Richards had made progress over the year and showed good insight into his illness. He had also avoided substances except alcohol. Mr. Richards could likely function in the community, but only if adequately supported.

• Mr. Richards had been compliant with medication over the reporting year and has indicated that he would continue medication.

• He understood Mr. Richards’ frustration and agreed that there had been no criminal activity over the reporting year although there was an allegation he had stolen a package from a porch the previous year.

20. In response to questions from panel members Dr. Pearce indicated that he did not believe that a conditional discharge would be appropriate to manage risk in that it would not allow for housing approval by the Hospital. A major concern with respect to risk was Mr. Richards’ personality structure and impulsivity as shown by his gambling and significant debts. As Mr. Richards is capable with respect to treatment decisions, he would have to consent to a community treatment order (CTO) and would have the ability to cancel the order at any time

21. Dr. Pearce also indicated that Mr. Richards had been designated alternative level of care (ALC) meaning that he had been ready for discharge to appropriate housing for a couple of years. Mr. Richards had enrolled in a chef’s program at George Brown College in Toronto but had withdrawn when he was unable to afford attendance. However, he had been involved in some distance learning with respect to becoming an insurance agent

Evidence of Mr. Richards

22. Mr. Richards indicated that:

• He had taken steps to try and find a residence in the community and had been in communication with ODSP with respect to funding. He had looked into studio apartments in the community but had not been able to find any available which would fit within his budget. He had asked family if he could reside at one of their residences but was told it was not possible. He had also spoken to a friend about residing with him or her but had not heard back from that person. He agreed that currently he had nowhere to go and would be prepared to remain in hospital voluntarily for a couple of months while trying to find a place to live.

• He would “most likely” deteriorate should he stop medication and “possibly” reoffend making him a third time NCR patient and then would be likely “stuck” in hospital for the rest of his life, so he wants to remain on his medication for the long term. He would do anything to get his freedom back including agreeing to a Community Treatment Order.

• With respect to his youth record he indicated that he was only with individuals when they were committing crimes and was never directly involved although he was found guilty. He did admit that he held on to a weapon for another individual and did not seem to understand that doing so did constitute a crime.

• He occasionally gambled and had tried to win enough money to pay for school related costs by gambling with money received from OSAP for schooling and owed that program approximately $10,000. He also has significant additional debts and that the Board “would not want to know how much.” He continues to gamble but has been on a hot streak for the previous week or so.

Final Submissions of the Parties

23. Dr. Pearce, on behalf of the Hospital. submitted that although Mr. Richards has been doing quite well, he needed a closely supervised discharge plan in order to address risk. Absent that type of supervision, although he may do all right for a few months, in the long term there was a substantial risk of a return of psychotic symptoms and a significant risk of harm to the public. To contain that risk, the Hospital needs to ensure that he has stable housing, continues to take his medications, structures his day, and has the supervision of an experienced forensic outpatient team to observe any early signs of decompensation prior to risk becoming unmanageable.

24. Dr. Pearce submitted that although a Community Treatment Order was theoretically possible, there was not one in existence and it was unclear whether an application would even be made for such an order. It is unknown where Mr. Richards would live or who would follow him under such an order and as he was capable of making treatment decisions, he would have to agree to the order and could cancel the order at any time.

25. Counsel for the Attorney General echoed the comments of Dr. Pearce and submitted that the Board should accept his evidence with respect to the existence of significant threat as well as his evidence with respect to why a conditional discharge would not be appropriate. She submitted that it was extremely unfortunate that Mr. Richards had not been accepted into THRP housing but noted that he remained on the waiting list for such housing and it was possible that the housing would become available within the reporting year.

26. Counsel for Mr. Richards maintained his position that the appropriate disposition was an absolute discharge. He commented on his client’s evidence as being straightforward and he appeared to recognize the need for a stable residence as evidenced by his undertaking to remain in hospital voluntarily until a suitable residence was available. His client’s evidence clearly showed insight into his need for medication and commitment to continue medication in the long-term.

Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:

27. The Board finds that despite currently doing quite well in hospital, Mr. Richards continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Richards suffers from a treatment resistant major mental illness has a history of serious violence even when closely monitored by a forensic outpatient team and characterological shortcomings. He has issues with respect to trust and at times has minimized and/or hidden symptoms of his illness. He also has a history of questionable decisions in relation to his finances which continues and is a significant source of stress for him potentially leading to decompensation.

28. Absent a disposition of the Board, he would likely either find unsuitable housing or remain unhoused, fall away from treatment providers, and deteriorate with a return of symptoms similar to those he experienced at the time of both sets of index offences which involved significant physical and psychological harm to the victims.

Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

29. The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order which allows for residence in the community, should appropriate housing be available. Given the above finding with respect to significant threat, the only options available to the Board are either a detention order or a conditional discharge and the Board finds that there is no air of reality to consideration of a conditional discharge.

30. The results of the HCR 20V3 indicate that on a conditional discharge Mr. Richards’ risk to the public would be moderate.

31. The Board agrees with the hospital that:

Under the scenario of a Conditional Discharge, the intensity of support currently available would not sufficiently manage Mr. Richards’ level of risk. As mentioned above, Mr. Richards’ history is replete with impulsivity and supervision violations, both in hospital and in the community. If Mr. Richards’ mental status were to destabilize such that a hospital readmission was deemed prudent (e.g., in order to mitigate safety concerns in the scenario of increased instability and increased symptoms), the likelihood of him attending voluntarily is suspect given expressed frustrations with the hospital system.

Unavailability of Appropriate Housing

32. The Board understands the frustration of both Mr. Richards and the Hospital with respect to the apparent lack of suitable housing for Mr. Richards. The recent Court of Appeal decision in Re: Ramos (2025 ONCA 820 ) highlights the difficult situation faced by both the Board and the Hospital when individuals found NCR are suitable for discharge from hospital into appropriate housing but such housing is not available. At paragraph 58 the court states:

This case brings into focus the broader systemic pressures within the NCR system, including the limited availability of appropriate housing and the difficult circumstances faced by individuals who live with both mental health conditions and significant social challenges. These realities make the Board’s task more complex: dispositions must continue to prioritize public safety while also supporting meaningful reintegration. It is important that individuals are not effectively penalized for barriers beyond their control, particularly when those barriers stem from gaps in housing, resources, or community supports. Approaching dispositions in this balanced way helps advance Parliament’s goals of promoting liberty, dignity, and equality for people found NCR and helps guard against situations where individuals risk prolonged or unnecessary institutionalization.

33. Based on the evidence at the hearing, there is a realistic possibility that TRHP housing will accept Mr. Richards into residence in the reporting year, should he display more stability and structure with respect to his time in the community. The Board encourages Mr. Richards to work towards achieving those goals in order to be discharged into that housing and move forward in his rehabilitative efforts. The Board also encourages the Hospital to seek alternative appropriate housing for Mr. Richards should he not be accepted into TRHP housing.

DATED this 31st day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board