Re: Aaron Schpitzer
ORB File No: 8792
Hearing held on: Thursday, September 25, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care Via Zoom Video Conference
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. K. Weisbaum Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Aaron Schpitzer Counsel: Ms. L.M. Landry
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Levasseur
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated December 31, 2025)
Introduction
On May 22, 2025, Aaron Schpitzer was found unfit to stand trial on charges of criminal harassment, possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, failure to comply with a release order, and failure to comply with probation, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Schpitzer is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 31, 2025, detaining him at the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programme of the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”) with privileges up to and including hospital and grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff.
On September 25, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to ss. 672.48(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Schpitzer was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Landry.
Initial Position of the Parties
Ms. Lefebvre, on behalf of the hospital, advised that the July 11 to 23, 2025, restriction of liberties was necessary and warranted from its commencement thru to its conclusion. Further, that a second restriction of liberties, which commenced later in the day on July 23, was also necessary and warranted and continues to be so to the present day.
Ms. Levasseur, on behalf of the Attorney General, joined in the hospital’s position.
Ms. Landry took no position but stipulated that the hospital should be put to the strictest standard of proof.
Background and Index Offences
The Hospital Report contains detailed information relating to Mr. Schpitzer’s background and psychiatric history and need not reviewed beyond the following material points. Mr. Schpitzer is a 29-year-old man who was born and raised in Kirkland Lake. He began to exhibit behavioural difficulties in elementary school and was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. He has received financial support from the Ontario Disability Support Program since the age of 21.
Mr. Schpitzer has a long history of substance use issues, involving alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and other substances. When using substances, he displayed paranoia and auditory hallucinations and was noted to be quick to anger. He also has a significant criminal record that is reflected in the Hospital Report with multiple convictions for violent offences including:
assaulting police officers.
attempting to disarm a police officer,
assault resisting arrest,
uttering threats,
carrying a concealed weapon,
multiple convictions for failing to abide with court order.
On January 9, 2025, Mr. Schpitzer allegedly spat at a correctional officer at the North Bay jail and was charged with assaulting a peace officer. On February 21, 2025, again at the North Bay jail, Mr. Schpitzer allegedly spat at a correctional officer, the spit landing on the victim’s forehead. He was charged with assaulting a peace officer for a second time. Charges in relation to both incidents remain outstanding.
Mr. Schpitzer was found unfit to stand trial on March 4, 2025, and admitted to Waypoint pursuant to a Treatment Order. There, he insisted on being immediately released, refused psychotropic medication, and refused to respond to questions from Dr. Komer, his attending psychiatrist. Mr. Schpitzer eventually agreed to accept injections of antipsychotic medication when staff dressed in protective gear attended.
Mr. Schpitzer continued to express grandiose delusions that he was an officer of the law. He kicked and banged his room door and window and yelled threats towards staff and co-patients. At the conclusion of the Treatment Order, the Court found that he remained unfit to stand trial.
A description of the alleged offences taken from the Reasons for Disposition dated August 21, 2025, follows:
“Index Offence 1:
Charge: Criminal Harassment
The accused in this matter is Aaron SCHPITZER. The accused has a lengthy criminal history and suffers from Anti-Social Personality Disorder. He is known to carry weapons and have unpredictable behaviour. The accused resides with his mother and father at 414339 Bryans Road in the Township of Evanturel, south of Englehart.
The accused has been subject of numerous recent Police Officer Safety bulletins, warning officers to be cautious of any interactions with the accused.
On March 6, 2022, the accused became subject of a Release Order in the Province of Alberta. He was ordered to “not carry or have in his possession any weapons or imitation while outside of your residence.”
On June 5, 2024, the accused became subject of a Probation Order where he was ordered to “keep the peace and be of good behaviour:
SUMMARY:
Between September 6, 2024, and October 31, 2024, there have been at least ten documented occurrences or interactions involving the accused and members of the Temiskaming Ontario Provincial Police:
On September 6, 2024, the accused attended Englehart OPP detachment with a letter to provide to police, requesting they investigate the theft of organs from his body. On September 14, 2024, the accused called in requesting OPP assistance as he [h]as drafted charges for people, and they would not sign the document. On October 28, 2024, the accused called in for an OPP Unit ID # to use the police radio in his care. The accused advised he was a former military member.
On October 29, 2024, the accused had four different interactions. The accused called in requesting a cruiser for the morning and to confirm his OPP call sign. The accused called later in the day wanting use of an OPP vehicle and call sign and to use the detachment to work on reports; all requests were denied. A third similar request was received from the accused, who made utterances he was at detachment; however, he was not located on the property. Finally on this date, the accused attended the
Englehart OPP detachment at 6:00 pm at shift change to pick up with work vehicle or to be brought to Temiskaming Detachment to collect a police cruiser there.
During the evening hours of October 30th, the accused called into the Temiskaming Detachment administration line and left lengthy voicemail request and soon would be “demanding use of an OPP vehicle. He made several utterances in that he is authorized to wear an RCMP uniform and not to run a “CPIC Query” on him. During the early hours of October 31st, the accused requested police attend the Esso gas bar on Fourth Avenue in Englehart. When officers arrived, the accused was wearing a military style uniform. Around 6:40 am, the accused again called for police at the Tim Hortons in Englehart. He was very specific about having an officer attend and would need an escort to the Temiskaming OPP Detachment. Members of the Temiskaming OPP detachment were reminded to be vigilant around all police facilities and exercise extreme caution with the accused. Based on the accused’s history and declining mental health, his has given reasonable fear to the members of the Temiskaming OPP detachment for their personal safety while on duty and while coming and going in their personal vehicles at the workplace. (Count 1 – _Criminal Harassment – _Repeatedly Communicate)
Index Offence 2 - 4:
Charges: Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose
Fail to Comply with Probation Order
Fail to Comply with Release Order
Through the morning of October 31st, police spoke with the accused’s mother and learned his mental health is in rapid decline. He is not taking his medication, has not been sleeping and feels he has no reason to live. Grounds were formed to apprehend the accused under the Mental Health Act.
Around 9:20 in the morning, prior to police making contact with the accused, the Tim Hortons in Englehart called to report the accused was unwanted on the property. He was noted to have handcuffs in a pouch. A separate 911 call was received from Fourth Avenue in Downtown Englehart, where the accused was observed by a member of the public to have what looked like a tire iron in his hand. When the bystander asked if the accused was okay, he told him it would be best if they went back inside the apartment. Police arrived a short time later and found the accused to be wearing a dark military style uniform. He had a pry bar in his hand and had to be given repeated directions to drop the object. The accused was apprehended under the Mental Health Act. Police located a set of handcuffs and a roll of duct tape, along with the pry bar and several hand-written notes on the accused’s person and in his backpack (Count 2, 3 and 4).
Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose, Fail to Comply with Probation Order and Fail to Comply with Release Order)
The accused was transported by police to the Temiskaming Hospital for a Mental Health Assessment. After a number of hours, police were informed the accused is “too
violent” to be admitted to the nearest psychiatric facility due to his prior interactions at the North Bay Hospital and was turned back over to police.”
Current Diagnoses
Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type,
Antisocial Personality Disorder,
Cannabis Use Disorder, moderate, in sustained remission.
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Komer, adopted the contents of both the Restriction of Liberty Report and the Hospital Report, entered as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.
Dr. Komer provided a brief overview regarding Mr. Schpitzer’s presentation over the two weeks preceding today’s hearing. Incidents include:
September 10: groping at staff and attempting to set off the ceiling fire alarm,
September 14: kicking at the seclusion room door and asking for a sword to cut the heads off staff,
September 16: alludes to having a boxing match with staff,
September 20: kicking at the seclusion room door and stating that staff are “fake”,
September 23: diverts medication,
September 25: kicking at the seclusion room door and threatening to crack the skull of a staff member.
Mr. Schpitzer is currently treated with Zyprexa Zydis, 10 milligram dosage, twice daily, recently increased to three times daily. Asked to explain the purpose of prescribed clonazepam and Lemborexant, Dr. Komer advised that these medications are intended to enable a better night’s sleep for Mr. Schpitzer. Pills have been found in Mr. Schpitzer’s room which is suggestive of noncompliance with oral medications. Dr. Komer described Mr. Schpitzer’s medication adherence as hit and miss. Dr. Komer last spoke with Mr. Schpitzer’s mother, who is his Substitute Decision Maker (“SDM”), about the possible use of injectable medications on July 23. At that time, she only consented to the use of oral medications for her son. Asked why the SDM does not consent to injectable medication, Dr. Komer responded that for the time being, she is only consenting to the use of oral medications.
Dr. Komer advised that as per hospital protocol, Mr. Schpitzer’s seclusion has been regularly reviewed by doctors who are not part of his treatment team. This is referenced at page 7 of the Restriction of Liberty Report, which also speaks to daily seclusion reviews. Mr. Schpitzer has daily interactions with staff in addition to being provided with his meals as well as daily assessments regarding his appropriateness for seclusion relief, again, as set out at page 7 of the Hospital Report.
At present, Dr. Komer describes his patient’s presentation as likely worse than it was on July 23. However, Mr. Schpitzer did agree to speak with him for 5 to 10 minutes in the hours prior to this hearing. During this brief meeting, M. Schpitzer stated that he is a military physician.
Dr. Komer opined that Mr. Schpitzer continues to require seclusion because it addresses his elevated risk of harm to others in keeping with the incidents reported in the month of September in conjunction with his history of aggression and criminal record.
The factors that will enable Mr. Schpitzer to reduce his risk and thereby come out of seclusion, involve the regular taking of prescribed medications and demonstrating behavioural control.
Ms. Landry inquired how frequently Dr. Komer has seen Mr. Schpitzer since the start of his seclusion. Dr. Komer responded that this occurs once or twice a week. The duration of these interactions ranges from less than a minute, if Mr. Schpitzer refuses to speak with him, to a maximum duration of approximately 15 minutes. During those discussions Dr. Komer seeks to determine what Mr. Schpitzer is thinking/perceiving. Dr. Komer does not recall Mr. Schpitzer ever making direct threats towards him or stating he would hurt a specific staff.
Dr. Komer advised that the last time he had a fulsome discussion with Mr. Schpitzer’s SDM, is when he first received substitute consent from her. This was around the time of Mr. Schpitzer’s CCB hearing in mid to late July. Ms. Landry inquired of Dr. Komer if he had had been any further direct conversations with the SDM that could assist in ending Mr. Schpitzer’s ongoing seclusion. Dr. Komer responded that he had not. The responsible social worker has been updating the SDM and advising that Mr. Schpitzer remains in seclusion.
Questioned by the panel as to his ongoing communications with his patient’s SDM and what education the SDM has been given vis-à-vis oral versus injectable medication, Dr. Komer responded that after he spoke with her in mid to late July, she communicated to hospital staff that she was solely consenting to oral medications for her son.
Ms. Landry called Mr. Schpitzer to testify and inquired about the threat that Dr. Komer perceives he poses to others. Mr. Schpitzer testimony was tangential and difficult to follow. Discernable fragments of what he said included that he had not threatened staff and that inherently there is no problem if someone is kicking a door or a window. Mr. Schpitzer added that if there is aggression claimed against him, he is ready to go before the court. Asked why Dr. Komer is keeping him in seclusion, Mr. Schpitzer responded that the doctor is endorsed by the College of Physicians and that he can discuss the weather with him. He added that he is in seclusion due to his own being. Mr. Schpitzer stated that staff are unprofessional and anthropological and do not know where they are. He stated that he had spoken to his mother via video conference.
Closing Observations
Ms. Lefebvre submitted that the restrictions of liberties were and remain warranted to address the risk Mr. Schpitzer poses to staff and co-patients, such that he requires continued seclusion at this time. Mr. Schpitzer remains suboptimally treated and is diverting his oral medications. Page 2 of Exhibit 1 details discussions with his SDM on July 28 and her concerns regarding the administration of Abilify. Dr. Komer is seeking to revisit the issue of injectable medications with Mr. Schpitzer’s SDM. Mr. Schpitzer needs to demonstrate control of his behaviours such that his risks decrease sufficiently to enable him to be removed from seclusion.
Ms. Levasseur concurred with the hospital’s submission.
Ms. Landry stated that her client’s position is that both restrictions of liberty were unwarranted, and the current one continue to be. Ms. Landry expressed concern regarding what steps are being taken to assist Mr. Schpitzer in limiting and putting an end to the ongoing restriction of his liberty.
Analysis
The Board understands that it remains necessary at this point to seclude Mr. Schpitzer and is optimistic that the hospital will only continue his restriction of liberty until such time as, in the discretion of the person in charge, he can be safely reintroduced to the patient population.
ROL # 1: The Board has concluded that the July 11th decision of the hospital to significantly increase the restrictions on the liberty of Mr. Schpitzer on was warranted and remained the least onerous and least restrictive decision through to July 23rd in order to fully restabilize his mental status and safely manage his risk of harm to others. The rationale supporting the start of this restriction is set out at pages 2 – 3 of Exhibit 1, reproduced below for ease of reference:
Events Surrounding the Restriction of Liberty, July 11 to 23, 2025: Mr. Schpitzer was secluded on July 11 at 1:53 p.m. after his mental state had deteriorated. At the time of seclusion, he was irritated, withdrawn, agitated, and banged and kicked on his door. He dismissed the staff when asked if it was safe for him to come out of his room. The on-call psychiatrist noted in the seclusion note that it was difficult to assess his thought content as he could not answer basic questions and due to significant thought disorder, it is not possible to assess the risk of violence to others.
At 10:15 p.m., Mr. Schpitzer pulled the anti-ligature alarm in his room and stared at the staff with a threatening posture. When he was asked about initiating the alarm, he said it was a calling bell to announce my point of view, holding me illegally, release me right now, I do not belong in here, I demand habeas corpus; legally, you are obligated to do that". He was boisterous and screamed throughout the night, unreceptive to requests to stop so others could sleep. The following day, he showered, watched television, and moved to the seclusion suite. He was described as slightly irritable and argumentative but remained calm.
- ROL #2: The Board has concluded that the July 23rd decision of the hospital to significantly increase the restrictions on the liberty of Mr. Schpitzer on was warranted and remained the least onerous and least restrictive decision through to the date of this hearing in order to fully restabilize his mental status and safely manage his risk of harm to others. Mr. Schpitzer had only been released from seclusion for a few hours when the decision was taken to re-seclude him for the reasons as set out at page 3 of Exhibit 3, reproduced below for ease of reference:
Events Surrounding the Restriction of Liberty, July 23, 2025, to the writing of this report: Although Mr. Schpitzer appeared stable and no longer required management with seclusion, approximately 3.5 hours after his seclusion was discontinued, he pushed past a patient exiting the phone booth, walked quickly, and loudly stomped through the corridors. He attempted to open the emergency exit, glared, and was sarcastic with the staff. He intimidated them by forcefully throwing his hat to the floor, quickly invading their personal space before abruptly stopping and standing with his arms stretched over his head. Aside from telling the staff, “I am doing my tour,” he did not engage. To manage his intimidating behavior, all patients were directed to their rooms. With additional direction, Mr. Schpitzer obliged and slammed his door. He told the staff, “I am an Officer with the armed forces, I am on tour.” He said he tried to open the emergency exits because “staff don’t know how to move.” When staff addressed his pushing of a co-patient, Mr. Schpitzer replied, “I am an Officer, I know what I am doing.” It was decided that seclusion was again necessary to manage his imminent risk to others.
- This panel of the Board is satisfied that the evidence supports the imposition of the subject restriction of liberties as well as Mr. Schpitzer’s ongoing seclusion to protect both hospital staff and co-patient members of the public. However, further steps are required to ensure that Mr. Schpitzer’s ongoing restriction of liberty continues to represent the least onerous and least restrictive decision. This patient has largely remained in seclusion from July 11th, 2025, to the present day and continues to be treated exclusively by way of oral medication as directed by his mother and now SDM since July 28th, 2025. Dr. Komer testified that Mr. Schpitzer has not been assiduous in taking his prescribed oral psychotropic medications and that his presentation has worsened since the start of seclusion. Specific incidents were described covering the two-week period preceding this hearing. Given the foregoing, this Panel directed that Mr. Schpitzer’s attending psychiatrist, currently Dr. Komer, forthwith contact and personally canvass with Mr. Schpitzer’s SDM, the risks and benefits of oral vs. injectable medications as well as any potential side effects in treating Mr. Schpitzer. In the circumstances, Dr. Komer’s testimony that the treatment team’s social worker has been solely responsible for updating Mr. Schpitzer’s SDM vis-à-vis her son’s ongoing seclusion since late July speaks to his apparent reluctance to proactively engage as an advocate for his patient. Dr. Komer description of Mr. Schpitzer’s compliance with oral psychotropic medications as hit and miss necessitates a substantive discussion with his patient’s SDM to ascertain if she understands and appreciates the information relevant to providing a valid substitute consent for her son at this time of crisis. Mr. Schpitzer’s protracted seclusion is clearly linked tosuboptimal treatment attributable to continued diversion of oral psychotropic medication. This concern was recognized by his SDM, as reported at page 2 of Exhibit 1:
She agreed that he needed treatment and indicated that he can “play games” by hiding his medication under his tongue and suggested a dissolvable format would be best for him.
and precisely why this panel, in its Decision dated September 29, 2025, directed that:
The accused’s attending psychiatrist shall forthwith contact and canvass with the accused's substitute decision maker for treatment the risks and benefits of oral versus injectable medications as well as any potential side effects associated with each option. Thereafter, if in the opinion of the attending psychiatrist, the substitute decision maker is unable to provide a consent in the accused's best interests, to expeditiously consider whether an application seeking the removal of the current substitute decision maker is warranted.
- The terms and conditions contained within Mr. Schpitzer’s July 31, 2025, Disposition remain appropriate.
DATED this 31st day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board