Re Campbell, 2025 CanLII 13629

Re: Kreig Campbell

(DOB: 21.12.86)

ORB File No: 7663

Hearing held on: Thursday, January 16, 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. C. MacIntyre, K.C. Members: Dr. K. Patel Dr. W. Loza Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Kreig Campbell Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 29, 2025)

Introduction

1. On December 12, 2019, Kreig Campbell was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of arson causing damage to property, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).

2. On January 16, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Mr. Campbell’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Campbell was ordered detained withing the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”) with the outer limit of privileges being living in the community is accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. Mr. Campbell was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Jocelyne Boissonneault, throughout the proceedings.

4. A Hospital Report dated January 6, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1.

5. The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Campbell continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Campbell continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a Conditional Discharge, as per the joint submission, is the necessary and appropriate Order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Campbell’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

7. Schizophrenia

Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, In Sustained Remission

Cannabis Use Disorder, Moderate, In Sustained Remission

Position of the Parties

8. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. Ms. Jessica Szabo, counsel for the hospital, took the position that Mr. Campbell continues to present a significant risk to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge with terms as set out on page 39 of the Hospital Report. In addition, Ms. Szabo also recommended clause (f) as laid out on page 39 of the Hospital Report, which is the prohibition against firearms, not be included in the Disposition.

9. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, supported the position of hospital.

10. Counsel for Mr. Campbell, Ms. Boissonneault, conceded the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public. She agreed that a Conditional Discharge on the terms recommended by the hospital are necessary and appropriate. She also requested that clause (g) as laid out on page 39 of the Hospital Report, be excluded from the Disposition.

Index Offence

11. The circumstances of the index offence from the Peel Regional Police Service Synopsis are found on pages 2 and 3 of the hospital report and are extracted as follows:

“On Monday, November 26, 2018, at approximately 1:19 AM, the complainant, Ms. Kamille Campbell, contacted 911 in regards to a fire at her residence located at 16 Moss Creek Court in the City of Brampton. Ms. Campbell advised that the fire had originated at the front door of the residence. She believed that someone had thrown gas on the door to start the fire, however, the fire had been extinguished.

At approximately 1:31 AM, police attended along with Brampton Fire and observed several items, including a bottle filled with a liquid, believed to be gasoline. The bottle also had a sock stuck in the end making it an incendiary device. Police located a barbecue lighter on the front lawn and observed that the front door area of the residence had been burned.

Upon speaking with Ms. Campbell’s parents, Fitzroy and Blossom Campbell, Police were advised that they awoke to the sound of the smoke alarm. They had been sleeping in the upper level of the residence and upon attending the main level they observed smoke. They further advised that the rear door of the residence was open and that their gas stove was turned on, however, there was no flame.

Brampton Fire advised police that there had been another source of fire in the basement ceiling near the front door. However, they did not believe that this fire could have been caused by the fire on the exterior of the residence. This would require further investigation.

The family believed that Mr. Campbell was responsible for the fire as he had been recently apprehended under the Mental Health Act and since that time, had not been welcome in the residence. Mr. Campbell had resided at this residence previously, however, had been living in shelters since being released from the hospital and was at that time of no fixed address.

Upon attending the rear of the house, police located a black winter jacket hanging on a post near the back door of the residence. Inside the jacket, police located a cell phone and a wallet containing various identification in the name of Kreig Campbell.

Mr. Campbell was located a short distance away from the residence by police and he was identified by Mrs. Blossom Campbell. At approximately 3:37 AM, police spoke to Mr. Campbell and advised him that he was being placed under arrest for the offence of arson.”

Background and History

12. The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Campbell’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, the following particulars are noteworthy.

13. Mr. Campbell is a 38-year-old single male born in Ontario. After completing high school, he enrolled in an electrical engineering program but was unable to complete it.

14. Mr. Campbell was homeless and residing at a shelter in Brampton at the time of the index offence.

15. Mr. Campbell is financially supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

16. Mr. Campbell had no prior criminal convictions. He was charged with assault on October 17, 2008, but it appears the charge was stayed after Mr. Campbell completed mental health diversion.

17. Mr. Campbell first experienced psychotic symptoms in his early twenties. Between 2014 and 2018, he had multiple psychiatric contacts or admissions to hospital due to violence and aggression, often directed toward his parents and often in the context of medication non-compliance and substance use.

18. Mr. Campbell is incapable to consent to psychiatric treatment. His sister, Kanisha Campbell, is his substitute decision maker.

Course Since Last Disposition

19. Mr. Campell remained compliant with his long-acting injectable medication every 28 days. He now receives his injection through Durham Mental Health Services (“DMHS”).

20. Mr. Campbell was initially discharged to Ballantyne House in July 2023, a highly supportive 24/7 group home operated by DMHS. He was offered and accepted a room at Smith House, a medium supportive group home, staffed Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm with on call weekend staff for emergencies.

21. Mr. Campbell met with his Forensic Outpatient Services (“FOS”) clinician twice weekly, the DMHS nurse once every 28 days for his injection of Invega Sustenna, and his FOS psychiatrist once every four weeks. He was also seen by vocational services and his CBT therapist this reporting year.

22. Mr. Campbell acknowledges his diagnosis of schizophrenia. He reports experiencing psychotic symptoms such as disorganized speech, disorganized thinking, and amotivation. However, he does not consider hearing conversations among individuals in airplanes to be a symptom. He is unsure why he can hear these conversations despite the physical distance but is adamant that this is not related to his schizophrenia.

23. While Mr. Campbell has gained a general understanding of schizophrenia, he remains ambivalent about both the psychotic symptoms he experiences during periods of wellness and the need for lifelong medication. He does not fully recognize the potential impact of alcohol use on his mental health. His insight into his psychotic illness, substance use, and the need for treatment remains underdeveloped.

24. Mr. Campbell believes he could remain well without the use of antipsychotic medication and has expressed a desire to discontinue his treatment to assess whether it impacts his mental status. Mr. Campbell has been cooperative providing urine to be tested for drug and alcohol screens.

25. Mr. Campbell travelled with his family to Cancun, Mexico for five days in mid-July 2024 to attend his sister’s wedding. He spent several days with his family prior to departing for Mexico. His mother confirmed that the trip went well.

26. Mr. Campbell has been actively engaged in an online computer engineering programming course offered through Coursera. He continued to work on his goal of obtaining employment and contacted Vocational Services to complete a resume.

27. Mr. Campbell remained in regular phone contact with his mother.

Evidence at the Hearing

28. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Hospital Report, and oral evidence of Dr. Bhullar, Mr. Campbell’s psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report.

29. Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Campbell now receives his injection through DMHS though the operator of Ballantyne House.

30. Mr. Campbell has applied for Durham Access to Social Housing (“DASH”) and Access Point housing.

31. Mr. Campbell has settled well. His next step in rehabilitation is lower support housing. It is hoped that he will transition to lower support housing in the next year. DMHS will also work with him to obtain an independent apartment, if necessary. However, the treatment team does not think he is ready for independent housing because he would like to consume alcohol and has limited insight into the impact of alcohol on his illness. He may also experience stressors trying to get a job in his field.

32. Mr. Campbell did not use alcohol at his sister’s wedding in Mexico. Dr. Bhullar is not concerned that he will indulge in substances when he goes this year to his grandmother’s birthday celebrations in Jamaica.

33. To achieve an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Campbell needs to have more insight into the effect of substances on his illness. Mr. Campbell still thinks he could drink alcohol socially. He also needs to complete a Concurrent Disorders program.

34. Mr. Campbell has been medication compliant this year.

35. Mr. Campbell is due to complete his database engineering course by February or March, 2025.

36. Mr. Campbell’s family gave their written consent for Mr. Campbell to attend their home early in 2023. He has had no issue with passes to his parents’ home. He attended the wedding in Mexico with his parents and has spent time with his parents at their home after the wedding.

37. There have been no incidents of violence or aggression since he has been under the auspices of the ORB. There also has been no evidence of substance use.

38. Mr. Campbell believes he has an illness but that psychosocial stressors were at play at the time of the index offence.

39. Mr. Campbell is rule-abiding and would not go against his Disposition.

Submissions

40. Counsel for the hospital submitted that there is no evidence to support the inclusion of the firearms clause. They take no position regarding removal of the clause requiring no contact with his parents. Hospital counsel pointed out that Mr. Campbell’s and his parents have had several visits since they consented to Mr. Campbell attending at their home. The hospital would like a clause ensuring that Mr. Campbell resides in DMHS housing since his current housing is transitional and they believe he still needs the DMHS supports.

41. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that they would like the ‘no contact’ clause to remain in the Disposition. This is not an onerous clause for Mr. Campbell but it ensures that the victims of the offence can revoke their consent, which protects the victims.

42. Mr. Campbell’s lawyer submitted that the ‘no contact’ clause should be removed because the victims signed the consent to allow Mr. Campbell to visit their home two years ago. His parents have not raised any concerns. She pointed out that the Board considered this issue last year and Mr. Campbell has now exercised the passes that last year’s panel wanted to see him use. She submitted that, although this is not an onerous clause, it is restrictive.

Analysis and Conclusions

Significant Threat

43. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Campbell remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

44. Mr. Campbell suffers from a major mental illness. Though he acknowledges he has schizophrenia, he believes he could remain well without the use of antipsychotic medications and has expressed a desire to discontinue his medications to test his belief. He does not fully understand the impact of alcohol use on his mental health.

45. Mr. Campbell’s index offence was serious and occurred while experiencing symptoms of his illness. He continues to experience residual symptoms.

46. Therefore, the Board finds that Mr. Campbell continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

47. In light of the Board’s finding of significant risk, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.

48. Given the totality of the evidence, the Board relies on and accepts the Clinical Assessment of Risk set out at page 33 of the Hospital Report, part of which is extracted as follows:

“Mr. Campbell believes that he is suitable for independent housing. It remains important that Mr. Campbell’s integration into the community is paced and supported. However, he is willing to remain in supported housing and gradually work towards independent living as recommended by the treatment team. Should the board grant a Conditional discharge, the inclusion of a residence clause would ensure that Mr. Campbell does not opt for inappropriate housing over the upcoming year. A transition to independent housing at this time would significantly increase his psychosocial stressors, thereby increasing his risk of decompensation and violence risk. If Mr. Campbell were to move out of DMHS housing, he would be violating his Disposition, again, allowing the treatment team to intervene and bring him into the hospital for an assessment.”

49. The Board agrees that the hospital needs to be able to approve housing. Mr. Campbell believes he is suitable for independent housing but it is clear that he continues to require the supports that are currently provided, including his supportive housing, in order to manage his risk in the community. The Board agrees that he should reside in DMHS housing in the context of a Conditional Discharge.

50. The treatment team believes that continued community support is also necessary for Mr. Campbell to be able to identify and address potential future stressors that could negatively impact his mental health. It will be necessary for him to build supportive relationships in the community because both interpersonal connections and isolation played a role in his index offence.

51. Mr. Campbell has stable housing and his mental health has remained stable over the reporting year.

52. The treatment team believes that Mr. Campbell would cooperate with a voluntary admission to hospital if he were to have a deterioration in his mental state. He has been described as a rule-follower, which is evident from his commitment to follow his Disposition.

53. There is no evidence that a firearms clause should be included in the Disposition.

54. The ‘no contact’ clause shall remain in the Disposition. Mr. Campbell’s parents signed a consent for Mr. Campbell to attend at their home over two years ago. The Board believes updated evidence is necessary. The hospital has left it up to Mr. Campbell’s parents (the victims) to take the initiative to report any issues, which is onerous for victims, and particularly parents. Although the hospital has provided evidence that Mr. Campbell has attended his parents’ home and travelled with them, the ‘no-contact’ clause is for the protection of the victims. Mr. Campbell, as noted previously, continues to experience auditory hallucinations. He is ambivalent about the need for medication and need for abstinence from substances. Mr. Campbell still presents a significant risk to the public, including his parents. The ‘no contact’ term is not onerous or restrictive for Mr. Campbell, in light of his continued risk.

55. Prior to travelling internationally, Mr. Campbell will be required to submit an itinerary to the person in charge of the hospital or their designate. Given Mr. Campbell’s prior successful travel out of the country, it is anticipated and expected that Mr. Campbell will work with the treatment team to ensure that the itinerary is appropriate and provides for uninterrupted treatment.

56. The Board finds that there is evidence to support the recommendation for a Conditional Discharge. The necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition, is a Conditional Discharge on the terms set out in our formal Disposition.

DATED this 29th day of January 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. C. Murray Legal Member

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board