Enoch M. Thomas (Re), 2025 CanLII 143385

Re: Enoch M. Thomas

ORB File No: 8787

Hearing Held On: Wednesday, September 24, 2025

Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Pursuant To: Section 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. G. Kerry Ms. A. La Viola Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing: Accused: Enoch M. Thomas Counsel: Mr. D. Northcott Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 19, 2025)

OVERVIEW

1. The accused Enoch M. Thomas was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on May 20, 2025, on charges of assault (x4), assault with a weapon and theft under $5000, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Thomas appeared at the Ontario Court of Justice in the City of Brampton, before the Honourable Justice A. Falls. Mr. Thomas was transferred to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care under a Warrant of Committal for a hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

ISSUES

2. On September 24, 2025, the Board convened at Waypoint for a hearing further to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. The Board was asked to determine whether Mr. Thomas was fit to stand trial at the time of the hearing pursuant to s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code.

3. The Board received a Rule 13 notice under the Review Board Rules of Procedure, Schedule A, dated July 7, 2025, requesting that Mr. Thomas be transferred from Waypoint to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. The Board also received a response indicating that CAMH was not objecting to the transfer, however there would be an extensive waiting list for the admission.

4. At the outset of the hearing, the representative for the Hospital and Counsel for the Attorney General submitted their respective views – Mr. Thomas is now fit to stand trial – both agreeing that he be ordered back to court, and until such time that a trial date is set – that Mr. Thomas remain at Waypoint. Counsel for Mr. Thomas took the position that his client be discharged back to the community, or in the alternative, that Mr. Thomas was agreeable to the transfer to CAMH.

FINDINGS

5. The Board found that Mr. Thomas meets the established criteria for fitness to stand trial. He consistently demonstrated the ability to identify and articulate the charges against him, and he provided a coherent account of the events related to those charges. Mr. Thomas showed an understanding of the legal process, the adversarial nature of the courtroom, and the potential consequences/outcomes of his pleas. He expressed a willingness to discuss his options with his defence counsel, and he accurately defined key legal concepts. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Thomas demonstrated a reality-based understanding of the proceedings, establishing that he is fit to stand trial. An order was issued returning Mr. Thomas to court, for a verdict, and in the meantime, he will remain at Waypoint under the authority of the s. 672.46(2) order under the Criminal Code (Warrant of Committal).

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

6. The Hospital Report dated July 7, 2025, and an Inpatient Progress Report (fitness assessment) dated September 17, 2025, were entered as exhibits at the hearing. The following background information, including the events surrounding the charges, has been taken from the reports, summarized here as follows.

7. On August 7, 2022, a complainant reported that her father had been assaulted by Mr. Thomas, who had approached him on August 5, 2022, asking for a cigarette. After being told none was available, Mr. Thomas punched the victim in the left eye, causing him to fall and sustain injuries, including a black eye and a cut. On August 17, 2023, police received a report of Mr. Thomas assaulting a female in a hair salon, but she managed to escape, prompting him to throw a McDonald’s burger at her before fleeing. On October 15, 2023, a complainant reported that his dog was stolen while he grocery shopped. CCTV footage showed Mr. Thomas untying the dog’s leash and taking it away. Finally, on June 4, 2024, at a laundromat in Mississauga, after being asked to leave, Mr. Thomas refused, leading to a verbal and physical altercation with one victim where he had attempted to take the victim’s phone and, when another victim intervened, Mr. Thomas threw him to the floor before fleeing the scene.

8. Mr. Thomas is presently 46 years old. He was born in Grenada, with no available information regarding his biological family. He moved to Canada in 1988 at the age of 11, following his adoption by a Canadian woman, when he was approximately 7 or 8 years old. She had three biological children of her own. During the current admission, Mr. Thomas appeared unable to provide additional insights into his developmental history, and he reported no current involvement with any family.

9. Mr. Thomas attended high school in Mississauga, where he completed his grade 12 education. In terms of prior work experience, Mr. Thomas held jobs at Zellers, Railway Park Services, and United Parcel Service.

10. Before his incarceration, Mr. Thomas resided alone in Mississauga and was receiving a rent subsidy through Peel Housing. During his admission, he sought assistance to confirm the continued availability of his housing. It was revealed that Mr. Thomas’ subsidy had expired due to incomplete forms, resulting in the loss of his apartment as of January 2025. The whereabouts of his belongings from that apartment remains uncertain.

11. There does not appear to be any substance use issues by Mr. Thomas – beyond cigarettes and marijuana – indicating minimal involvement with illicit drugs.

12. A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database showed many entries. Mr. Thomas has a significant history of criminal offences, with over twelve sentencing dates as an adult, starting from September 16, 1997, when he was convicted of robbery. In 1998, the record shows three convictions for assault, aggravated assault, and utter threats. In 1999, he was convicted for an assault with a weapon, followed by a conviction for possession of a scheduled substance in 2000. Additional assault convictions were recorded in 2001, 2008, and 2014. Notably, Mr. Thomas has not been convicted of any offences since September 15, 2014, when he was found guilty again for assault with a weapon.

PSYCHIATRIC BACKGROUND

13. Mr. Thomas’ current psychiatric diagnosis is Schizoaffective Disorder – Bipolar Type. He is currently capable of making decisions about his medical treatment, and he is capable of managing his finances independently. He is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program.

14. The psychiatric history is outlined in the Hospital Report, revealing that Mr. Thomas had extensive interactions with the healthcare system due to persistent mental health issues. As far back as October 2013, he registered with hospital emergency departments on eight occasions and experienced nine inpatient admissions. Notably, during a previous stay at Waypoint, he reported being diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1998. In September 2014, Mr. Thomas had been involved with the Services and Housing in the Province and the Assertive Community Treatment Team, since 2007, receiving considerable support from various programs up until 2020.

15. A consult from October 2020 indicated that Mr. Thomas refused to collaborate with treatment providers. From September to November 2022, Mr. Thomas was admitted to the Mississauga Hospital, where he received a referral to both the Psychosis Spectrum Clinic and Medication Clinic for ongoing psychiatric monitoring. He attended his first appointment and appeared to keep up with regular outpatient visits until May 30, 2023. However, it was noted that Mr. Thomas had missed two consecutive appointments and discharged from the clinic after three missed visits.

16. On February 13, 2025, Mr. Thomas’ fitness to stand trial was assessed following his previous refusals to participate. During the assessment, it was noted that he was labile, mildly euphoric, and extremely disorganized. His responses during the interview were described as nonsensical, and he was unable to answer the fitness test questions properly. The assessment concluded that Mr. Thomas was unfit to stand trial, highlighting the presence of a longstanding psychotic disorder. At that time, Mr. Thomas was not on medication and reported psychotic symptoms.

17. Most recently – based on a fitness assessment dated September 17, 2025 – Mr. Thomas was deemed fit to stand trial.

EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING

18. The evidence included comprehensive testimony from Dr. J. Van Impe regarding Mr. Thomas’ current mental health status and behaviour. Dr. Van Impe expressed the view that Mr. Thomas was deemed fit to stand trial as of July 2025, and he has remained consistently fit since early August 2025.

19. Mr. Thomas has been out of seclusion since early June 2025. Throughout his time at Waypoint, Mr. Thomas has shown considerable progress, demonstrating full compliance with treatment, effectively interacting with co-patients, and exhibiting only temporary periods of agitation, that were managed with PRN medication. He has expressed an eagerness to resolve his criminal charges.

20. Dr. Van Impe stated that Mr. Thomas consistently answers assessment questions and actively participates in discussions, indicating stable fitness that would likely persist if he were placed in a supportive environment. However, although Mr. Thomas has been compliant with his treatment, Dr. Van Impe noted that he requires high doses of medication. He highlighted potential risks of decompensation if he was to be discharged prematurely, including possible agitation, delusions, and sleep disruptions, emphasizing that it would be in Mr. Thomas’ best interest to remain at Waypoint until his court appearance.

21. After further inquiries from the parties, Dr. Van Impe acknowledged that Mr. Thomas suffers from schizoaffective disorder and noted that this was his second admission at Waypoint, suggesting concerns about his historical compliance with medication. Namely, the potential for Mr. Thomas to decompensate if he were to stop taking his medication, and that the stresses of returning to court could reveal new issues that could impact on his current fit status.

22. Further, Dr. Van Impe attributed Mr. Thomas’ improvement to medication compliance and adjustments made during his admission. Mr. Thomas has developed a good therapeutic relationship with the treatment team, and he shows a solid understanding of how his medication contributes to his wellness.

23. However, there are challenges Mr. Thomas faces in managing housing and mental health support, noting the lack of a concrete plan for his return to the community. Dr. Van Impe concluded that transition back to the community must be carefully coordinated to ensure Mr. Thomas’ success navigating his mental health and legal challenges, emphasizing the importance of ongoing communication between the treatment team and community support services. This would necessitate a structured support system that considers Mr. Thomas’ mental health needs and the safety of the public.

SUBMISSIONS

24. After hearing the evidence, the parties were all in agreement. One of the primary considerations is that Mr. Thomas is not comfortable leaving the unit without staff supervision. His stability could be compromised if he were to return to a detention facility. It is most appropriate for him to remain in the current environment, as there is no concrete plan or supports for his return to community living. Such a lack of planning would pose significant risks, potentially resulting in disastrous outcomes for both Mr. Thomas and the broader community. His placement at Waypoint would adequately meet Mr. Thomas’ needs as he is undergoing treatment, while safeguarding the public.

FITNESS TO STAND TRIAL

25. The Board’s obligation under s. 672.48(1) is to determine whether the accused is fit to stand trial as of the day of the hearing, as defined under s. 2 of the Criminal Code. After a thorough review of the evidence presented at the hearing by Dr. Van Impe, the information contained in the Hospital Report and the Inpatient Progress Report (fitness assessment) conducted on September 17, 2025, the Board has determined that Mr. Thomas meets the legal criteria for fitness to stand trial.

26. In reaching its conclusion, the Board applied the legal test for fitness to stand trial as clarified by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26. The test for determining fitness is not about whether Mr. Thomas can make decisions in his best interests, but whether he can make and communicate decisions that are reality-based and intelligible. The Board finds that Mr. Thomas has a basic, reality-based understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings, the possible consequences, and he is able to communicate with counsel.

27. During the assessment, Mr. Thomas was able to clearly identify all charges against him and provided his own account of the events leading to those charges. He maintained that he did not use a weapon and clarified that the burger he was accused of throwing was not intended as a weapon but was thrown at the ground in anger. Regarding the theft charge, he described the incident as involving a dog, offering different explanations but ultimately suggesting he did not steal the dog. He believed it either belonged to him, had no owner, or simply followed him home. He emphasized that the dog was off-leash and accompanied him after he left the grocery store.

28. Mr. Thomas demonstrated an understanding of important legal terms and procedure. He demonstrated an understanding of the adversarial nature of the courtroom, correctly identifying the Crown Attorney by both role and title. Mr. Thomas explained that the judge would decide whether he was guilty or not guilty, and he showed awareness of the consequences of a guilty verdict. He also indicated that he believed that he might be eligible for time served, showing a clear intention to discuss this with his lawyer.

29. The Board finds that Mr. Thomas possessed a sound understanding of the legal process, the nature and object of the proceedings, and the potential consequences. He was able to communicate effectively with his counsel and demonstrated a reality-based understanding of his situation. As such, the Board concludes that Mr. Thomas is fit to stand trial, consistent with the principles set out in R. v. Bharwani. Having found that Mr. Thomas is fit to stand trial at an initial hearing, the Board makes an order pursuant to s. 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code, sending Mr. Thomas back to court for a trial of the issue of fitness, and to render a verdict. In the meantime, the Warrant of Committal [s. 672.46(2) order], detaining him in hospital, remains in force.

DATED this 19th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. A. La Viola Legal Member

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board