Ontario Review Board
Re: Andreus Vrugteveen
ORB File No: 8645
Hearing held on: Tuesday, December 2, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. D. Sandor
Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Andreus Vrugteveen
Counsel: Ms. S. Brass
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Hwang
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated December 24, 2025)
Introduction
On October 9, 2024, Mr. Andreus Vrugteveen, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, mischief under $5000, indecent acts, and failure to comply with Probation Order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Vrugteveen is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 17, 2024, which orders that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“Royal Ottawa”).
Pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, Royal Ottawa notified the Board, by letter dated November 11, 2025, that Mr. Vrugteveen’s liberties had been restricted: Mr. Vrugteveen was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU”) after having been living in the community.
On December 2, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Royal Ottawa to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition and to conduct a restriction of liberty hearing (“ROL”).
Mr. Vrugteveen was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Shira Brass.
When the hospital significantly restricts the liberty of an accused for more than seven days, it has an obligation, under s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, to provide notice to the Board as soon as practical. Under s. 672.81(2.1), the Board is then required to convene an ROL hearing to review the hospital’s decision, also as soon as practical. Since Mr. Vrugteveen’s annual hearing was scheduled for December 2, 2025, it was agreed that his annual review and the ROL would happen concurrently.
A Hospital Report, (the "Hospital Report"), dated November 11, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1.
For the ROL, the issues at this hearing were:
(a) Whether the decision made by the person in charge, to significantly increase the restriction of liberty on Mr. Vrugteveen, was warranted and necessary and was the least onerous, and least restrictive, option in the circumstances, at the time of its onset on November 6, 2025; and
(b) Whether it continues to be so.
For Mr. Vrugteveen’s annual review, the issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Vrugteveen is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence before it, the Board concluded that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is the ongoing restriction of liberty. The Board found that these restrictions were necessary for public safety and that they represented the least onerous, and least restrictive, interventions available.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Vrugteveen continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing detention order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
a. Schizophrenia – multiple episodes, currently in acute episode
b. Amphetamine use disorder, severe, in a controlled environment
c. Cocaine use disorder, severe, in a controlled environment
d. Cannabis use disorder, severe, in a controlled environment
e. Social anxiety disorder – by history
f. Alcohol use disorder – by history
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board’s Reasons, as follows:
“In the early morning hours of April 20, 2024, Mr. Vrugteveen gained entry to a residential condo building at R[…] Street in Ottawa. He made his way to an apartment on the fourth floor and entered an unlocked door. The sole occupant, Ms. M., had forgotten to lock the door. She was asleep in her bedroom. Hearing some noise, she woke up. Once out of bed, she saw Mr. Vrugteveen outside her bedroom door. When he began to remove his clothing, she closed the door and locked herself inside.
Mr. Vrugteveen tried to force the bedroom door open. Hitting it several times, he damaged the door frame but was not successful in breaching the door.
Ms. M. placed a frantic call to 911. Police patrol officers soon arrived. They found Mr. Vrugteveen in the apartment living room. He was wearing only underwear briefs, lying on his back on the couch. He had his penis out and was masturbating.
Officers removed him from the couch and arrested him without incident. Ms. M. was still locked inside her bedroom.
Following the arrest, Mr. Vrugteveen began to ramble incoherently. The officers had difficulty dealing with him and redirecting him as to what was going on.
Interviewed soon after, Ms. M. told the officers in a written statement how she had woken up and first observed Mr. Vrugteveen. She described his clothing. Her description matched the clothing which police found in the apartment near where he had been.
She told the police that she had asked him who he was. He mumbled back to her when taking his jacket off. When she went back into her bedroom and locked the door, she could hear Mr. Vrugteveen as he began screaming and throwing things around before he started to attack the door. She did not know who he was and had never seen him before.
When the arresting officer told Mr. Vrugteveen he was under arrest and advised him of his rights to counsel and caution, Mr. Vrugteveen yelled back, with incomprehensible speech. Upon being transferred to the police vehicle, Mr. Vrugteveen tried to kick out the passenger side window. He stopped when the officer told him not to. Once taken to the police cell block, Mr. Vrugteveen’s incomprehensible speech continued.
The second responding police officer already knew Mr. Vrugteveen from a previous trespass incident at the same building. On the earlier date, Mr. Vrugteveen had entered a different unoccupied unit where cleaners found him squatting.
When Dr. Wood interviewed Mr. Vrugteveen at the jail on May 10, 2024, he told the psychiatrist he did not know his charges. He claimed that ‘a woman’ had broken into ‘his home’ and that she was claiming it was her home. During the interview, Dr. Wood noted Mr. Vrugteveen was mumbling to himself repeatedly, going on at length, and without seeming to try to convey any meaningful information.
Another attending psychiatrist interviewed Mr. Vrugteveen on July 17, 2024. He reported he had been living in Ottawa in a tent at the time of the index offence. He had spent the day walking around the city, going to different shelters in the downtown area. He was using crystal meth regularly but did not know whether the amount he was using had changed.
When asked about the building at R[…] Street, he said he did not know. He added that he owned a building, but did not know whether it was the one. He stated he had informed the building owner in person that he owned the building. Mr. Vrugteveen claimed, “I won ten trillion universal credits, and I did not know what to do with them”. He claimed he had used 1.2 trillion universal credits to pay a realtor and that the realtor told him he had bought the building.
\Mr. Vrugteveen reported having no memory of the events of April 20, 2024, in the victim’s apartment. When asked about the charge of committing an indecent act, Mr. Vrugteveen stated it was a game controller which they’d seen in his hand so that the police would have been mistaken about him masturbating.”
Reasons for ROL
- The hospital’s report sets out the reason for Mr. Vrugteveen’s readmission to hospital, as follows:
“On November 6, 2025, Mr. Vrugteveen was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit. He had smoked cocaine in his room at the Kimberlane group home, triggering a fire alarm and the fire department arriving at the home. This was his second time triggering the alarm and he was fined $2,400. The group home was no longer able to support him as their resident due to his behaviour that put other residents at risk. On assessment in the outpatient clinic, he reported that he was using more cocaine because he received additional funds from tax return. He said he was hearing voices from the mind’s eye speak through him. Given the risk of eviction and ongoing psychotic symptoms, it was determined that the risk of violence could no longer be mitigated in a community setting and therefore he was admitted to the hospital. Mr. Vrugteveen agreed with the admission.”
Criminal History, Background Information, Substance Use History and Previous Medical and Psychiatric History
- Mr. Vrugteveen’s Criminal History, Background Information, Substance Use History and Previous Medical and Psychiatric History are outlined in the hospital report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:
Criminal History
A criminal conviction was registered in November 2020 when Mr. Vrugteveen was 18. This first offence, mischief, saw him placed on probation following 41 days of pre-sentence custody.
There are two separate arson convictions, one in December 2020 (causing damage to property) and a second in October 2021 (arson with disregard for human life). On the first arson, sentence was suspended for 12 months, recognizing 31 days of pre-sentence custody. On the second, again, sentence was suspended, this time for 18 months, following 122 days of pre-sentence custody.
On October 29, 2021, Mr. Vrugteveen was also sentenced on three counts, assault peace officer, mischief, and breach of probation. He was ordered to serve 18 months under probation, concurrently with the arson sentence.
On September 7, 2022, following convictions for assault and mischief, a sentence of 10 days pre-sentence custody was recorded by the court in Gatineau, Quebec. A further 18 months’ probation was ordered.
Apart from four occasions when Mr. Vrugteveen was credited for pre-trial time spent in custody, he has not otherwise been sentenced to any jail term.
Background Information
He has been homeless for some time. He is single and has no dependents. Mr. Vrugteveen was born in Grimsby, Ontario. He grew up in a strong Christian household with six sisters and three brothers. He reported his childhood was okay and that he had a few friends. He recalled the family did not always have enough food. He would often wear hand-me-down clothing from older siblings.
Mr. Vrugteveen’s parents live on a six acre farm and have a plastic and recycling business. He has worked in the family business at different times.
Mr. Vrugteveen’s mother reported that her eldest daughter has Schizophrenia and is on an injectable medication. The youngest daughter has ADHD and other mental health issues.
When Dr. Wood met Mr. Vrugteveen in 2021 on a previous mental health assessment, Mr. Vrugteveen reported a history of intimate relationships, going back to 2014. His last relationship was with a woman, “Rita,” beginning in March 2020. He and Rita were staying in a shelter. The relationship was off and on for an indeterminate period. Details are set out in the hospital report dated July 2, 2024, at p. 6.
Mr. Vrugteveen’s mother reported that her son struggled in school early on due to delayed speech and possible dyslexia. Teachers supported him from a young age, so that he ended up doing well and did not require any special education. Ms. Vrugteveen also reported that her son played the clarinet and did not engage much in sports. She did not recall any behavioural problems in school, nor suspensions, nor any concerns about teasing or bullying.
Mr. Vrugteveen finished high school on time. He enjoyed computer programming courses and even took some at a university level. In 2012, he completed a one-week course in Toronto to become a security guard but did not go on to work in that field.
Mr. Vrugteveen has worked at different jobs in Ontario and British Columbia. These include working in the family plastics and recycling business, in a restaurant, a hardware store, at a truck stop and, in British Columbia, as a pizza delivery driver and for a grocery store.
In early 2020, after moving to Ottawa, Mr. Vrugteveen got a job at the King Eddy restaurant on the Byward Market. He left due to Covid shutdowns but returned in July 2020. He later lost the job after injuring his foot in a strange incident whereby he had run to the Parliament while intoxicated and smashed a windshield with his foot. By 2023, Mr. Vrugteveen was back home, once again helping on the family farm.
Prior to the index offence, Mr. Vrugteveen was mostly supported through the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).
Substance Use History
Mr. Vrugteveen reported having had trouble in the past with hard liquor. He started to drink at age.
He would experience blackouts, agitation and aggression when drinking excessively.
In 2012, Mr. Vrugteveen began to use cannabis. He has smoked it throughout adulthood. On previous psychiatric admissions, he has admitted to continuous use.
In 2020, Mr. Vrugteveen began using stimulants, including combinations of crack cocaine, amphetamines and methamphetamines. In March 2024, when he was admitted to the Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, he reported recent daily use of methamphetamines and cannabis.
A history of cannabis use disorder among some family members is noted in the hospital report dated July 2, 2024, p. 9.
The same report provides a detailed account of Mr. Vrugteveen’s self-report of his most recent substance use, p. 9.
Previous Medical and Psychiatric History
“Earlier records document that Mr. Vrugteveen had presented to hospital multiple times in July and August 2020 due to an infection to his leg (cellulitis), whereby he needed oral and intravenous antibiotics.
On July 31, 2023, Mr. Vrugteveen was in a serious car accident. He was a backseat passenger in a head on collision. It is not clear whether he lost consciousness following the accident. He suffered traumatic pneumohemothorax (having both air and blood in the chest cavity), a rib fracture and a sternal fracture with associated retrosternal hematoma (blood behind the sternum). Mr. Vrugteveen was admitted to the North Bay Regional Health Centre for four days of treatment and monitoring.
Records from the Montfort Hospital include an emergency psychiatric consultation from April 9, 2020. Police had brought Mr. Vrugteveen to the hospital following an altercation at the Mission shelter. He was yelling and threatening to kill the individual he was fighting with, as well as police officers. He continued to show this behaviour in the emergency department. A code white was called; chemical and physical restraints were applied.
Family members noticed a change in Mr. Vrugteveen’s personality about eight years earlier, when Mr. Vrugteveen started using cannabis on a regular basis. In 2018, when he was in British Columbia, he would call the family at all hours of the night, saying crazy stuff. Normally, to their experience, Mr. Vrugteveen was calm and quiet at baseline but could become argumentative whenever he consumed alcohol or cannabis. One sister suspected he had Schizophrenia, given the family history.
On July 25, 2020, Mr. Vrugteveen came to the Ottawa Hospital emergency department with concerns about homelessness and with an infection to his leg. He was seen again at their emergency department on August 20, 2020, and referred to psychiatry on issues of hopelessness and suicidal thinking.
On September 11, 2020, police found Mr. Vrugteveen in the street. He was building a tower of traffic cones to about the height of the traffic lights. He was sitting on top. His speech was disorganized. He talked wildly about consumerism and Tim Horton’s coffee cup lids. The officers brought him to the Montfort Hospital. Mr. Vrugteveen explained that the purpose of the cone tower was an act of protest to “protect the trees.” He was admitted involuntarily. The treatment team learned of his over-invested ideas about plastics, garbage and consumerism associated with his psychosis. When started on antipsychotic medication (Olanzapine), he refused to take it for most of the following months.
In January 2023, police brought Mr. Vrugteveen to the local hospital in Markham, Ontario. A driver had found him lying in a snowbank. It was learned he had recently moved to Toronto from Ottawa. He reported having walked most of the way from Ottawa to Toronto while experiencing auditory hallucinations.
Following other admissions to local Ottawa hospitals in May 2021, January 2024, and again in March 2024, Mr. Vrugteveen was reporting daily methamphetamine and crack cocaine use. In March 2024, during an assessment at the Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus, he was agitated and threatening towards security, while appearing to be responding to internal stimuli.”
Position of the Parties
- The parties were canvassed as to their positions with respect to both the annual review and restriction of liberty. Dr. Hwang, as representative of the hospital and most responsible physician, counsel for the Attorney-General, and counsel for Mr. Vrugteveen advised that this was a joint submission:
(a) All parties agreed that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is the ongoing restriction of liberty.
(b) All parties also agreed with the recommendation to continue the existing detention order disposition.
- Counsel for Mr. Vrugteveen advised, that for the purposes of this hearing, significant threat was not in dispute.
Course since last Disposition
- Mr. Vrugteveen’s course since his last Disposition is set out in the hospital report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Vrugteveen remained at OCDC until January 30, 2025, when there was a room available at the Kimberlane group home. Given his mental stability on his antipsychotic medications and prolonged sobriety from substances due to incarceration, it was determined that he would be a successful candidate to transition to this 24-hour supervised group home. In doing so, he was no longer waiting for a transfer to the forensic unit at The Royal, with undetermined wait time.
By mid-March 2025, Mr. Vrugteveen relapsed from cocaine and cannabis use. Despite his denial of using methamphetamines, the urine drug screens often showed presence of this stimulant too. He could not identify any triggers for his use. Although he was connected with the addictions counsellor for individual therapy, he did not engage with her and reported that he had no intentions of stopping or reducing use.
On April 3, 2025, Mr. Vrugteveen attended my clinic with his forensic case manager. He had increase in psychotic symptoms where he believed that his brother was talking through him. He asked me whether I knew about the mind's eye, a topic that had been commonly discussed when he was previously in a psychotic episode. In addition, he had told his case manager that he had a radio in his head and that he was the radio host. Mr. Vrugteveen agreed to increase the dose of haloperidol again and refrain from cocaine use. He said he no longer had the funds for cocaine. An admission to the forensic assessment unit was considered but there were no beds available, and he did not meet criteria for a Form 1 of the Mental Health Act.
From May to October 2025, Mr. Vrugteveen’s psychotic symptoms fluctuated based on his cocaine use.
By the end of October 2025, Mr. Vrugteveen had more funds available from social assistance. This resulted in increase in his cocaine use which was followed by him being more disorganized and delusional for longer periods.
By the end of October 2025, Mr. Vrugteveen had more funds available from social assistance. This resulted in increase in his cocaine use which was followed by him being more disorganized and delusional for longer periods. At the same time, he missed several group therapies at the forensic outpatient department and required his case manager to remind him of appointments often. Clozapine was considered to treat ongoing symptoms, but Mr. Vrugteveen declined this stating that he did not like to provide weekly blood samples. There were times when he questioned the necessity of his ongoing antipsychotic medications too.
On November 6, 2025, Mr. Vrugteveen was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit. He had smoked cocaine in his room at the Kimberlane group home, triggering a fire alarm and the fire department arriving at the home.
The group home was no longer able to support him as their resident due to his behaviour that put other residents at risk. On assessment in the outpatient clinic, he reported that he was using more cocaine because he received additional funds from tax return. He said he was hearing voices from the mind’s eye speak through him. Given the risk of eviction and ongoing psychotic symptoms, it was determined that the risk of violence could no longer be mitigated in a community setting and therefore he was admitted to the hospital. Mr. Vrugteveen agreed with the admission.”
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Hwang. Dr. Hwang co-authored the Hospital Report, and she testified as follows:
a) Since his admission to the hospital, Mr. Vrugteveen has been polite and pleasant with staff; however, he continues to have negative symptoms of his Schizophrenia.
b) Mr. Vrugteveen’s reasons for being admitted to the hospital are set out on page 36 of the Hospital Report. He was admitted to the FAU on November 6 because of his increased substance use and cocaine smoking, which triggered the fire alarm at his group home. The treatment team was advised that group home staff were in the process of having Mr. Vrugteveen evicted - because of his past conduct, smoking in the unit and his most recent triggering of the fire alarm. The treatment team decided to admit Mr. Vrugteveen on November 6, 2025, as there was currently a bed available for him in the hospital, and he was going to be evicted from his current residence.
c) The treatment team has continued to optimize Mr. Vrugteveen’s medication regimen, and they are in the process of transitioning him from Haloperidol to Clozapine. Mr. Vrugteveen’s current dose of Clozapine is 100mg, and they expect it to take one to two months for him to reach a therapeutic dose. The treatment team is titrating his Clozapine slowly, because of Mr. Vrugteveen’s low blood pressure.
d) Mr. Vrugteveen’s Olanzapine is also being reduced, to avoid polypharmacy.
e) Mr. Vrugteveen has been medication adherent, even while using substances.
f) Mr. Vrugteveen has limited insight into the effect that cocaine, and other substances, have on his mental health and his risk to public safety. Mr. Vrugteveen has not participated in any addiction treatment so far, but the hospital is continuing to encourage him attend such groups.
g) The treatment team is hoping that Mr. Vrugteveen he will be more willing to engage in some of their therapy groups, once he is on a therapeutic dose of Clozapine.
h) The plan is to transfer Mr. Vrugteveen to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit, at which time they will be able to discuss his discharge back to the community. His housing options will be quite limited because of his history of substance use and his recent triggering of fire alarms in his group home.
- In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Hwang testified:
a) Mr. Vrugteveen is capable of consenting to treatment. He does not have any active positive symptoms of his Schizophrenia, but he does have fixed, and active, delusions because of his mental illness.
b) Mr. Vrugteveen has limited insight with respect to his mental health issues, including his need for medication and how it impacts his mental health.
c) Mr. Vrugteveen does understand that he should not use substances, and he has not used any substances in the hospital, but he still has cravings and has had very limited engagement with addictions treatment. His substance use is a significant factor in his risk of decompensation.
d) Mr. Vrugteveen cannot identify the triggers for his relapse.
e) He is currently capable with respect to finances, but financial capacity assessments are ongoing.
- In response to questions from counsel for Ms. Vrugteveen, Dr. Hwang testified:
a) Mr. Vrugteveen has been medication adherent in the community, even while using substances. Mr. Vrugteveen’s medication regimen includes both injections and oral medications, and his adherence has been verified by his urine drug screens as well as staff at the group home.
b) At the time of the Index Offences, his risk factors were both substance use and lack of medication.
c) While Mr. Vrugteveen was using substances, he did not engage in any acts of violence or indecent exposures.
d) The treatment team’s main concern was Mr. Vrugteveen’s smoking cocaine indoors. While no fires were started because of this behaviour, his risk of eviction was imminent.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Hwang testified:
a) Mr. Vrugteveen has no contact with his family, nor does he want it. The treatment team is hoping that the addition of Clozapine will improve his negative symptoms, which might cause him to reconsider family contact.
b) Mr. Vrugteveen understands that his placement in the community will be delayed until he has a lengthy period of sobriety and engagement in addiction treatment programs.
c) A Conditional Discharge is not appropriate, as the treatment team needs to approve Mr. Vrugteveen’s accommodations, to ensure his abstinence from substances and to monitor his mental health.
d) The incident that happened in April 2025, proved that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public.
e) Had the treatment team not readmitted Mr. Vrugteveen when they did, he would have increased his substance use, leading to decompensation and the commission of a serious criminal act.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Vrugteveen remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Hwang, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. Vrugteveen has limited insight into his mental illness. Moreover, he has recently made statements indicating doubt about the benefits of pharmacology on mitigating his symptoms of his schizophrenia.
Mr. Vrugteveen has shown little motivation to work towards abstinence; he has continued to use substances while in the community, particularly cocaine.
Having recently lost his housing, Mr. Vrugteveen does not currently have a residence available to him.
In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:
“Based on this assessment, the most likely scenario involving risk of violence would be a combination of Mr. Vrugteveen continuing or escalating his use of substances such as cocaine, showing further loss of insight into his schizophrenia and substance use disorder, and demonstrating worsening engagement with treatment, ultimately resulting in further resurgence in his psychotic symptoms. This would include thought and behaviour disorganization where he would target individuals that are in close proximity to him.
I am recommending a Detention Order as the most necessary and appropriate in the current circumstances in order to manage this risk, which is also understood as the least onerous and least restrictive measure. There are multiple violence risk factors that are active at this time. His stimulant and cannabis use is an ongoing concern because the substances have exacerbated his symptoms of schizophrenia including bizarre delusions and disorganized behaviour; these are the same symptoms that he demonstrated at the time of the index offence. His medications are only partially effective in treating the psychotic symptoms where his delusions remain even during short periods of sobriety. Further, his limited insight into his psychotic symptoms and its relationship to his violence risk is worrisome. Medication optimization, active engagement in addictions treatment, and improved insight into his psychotic symptoms and its relation to his violence risk are required to reduce his future violence risk. These factors cannot be safely implemented under a Conditional Discharge given his recent history of disengagement from the treatment team and treatment recommendations, poor insight into illness, and ongoing psychotic symptoms. I recommend no changes to his current disposition order.
In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. It is clear from the Hospital Report, and Dr. Hwang’s uncontroverted evidence, that the hospital needs to approve Mr. Vrugteveen’s housing, to monitor his mental stability and to ensure his abstinence from substances. The Board accepts Dr. Hwang’s evidence that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public.
The Board agrees that a restriction of liberty has taken place, pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. vs. M.L.C. (2010 ONCA 843) and Regina vs. Campbell (2018 ONCA 140). The Board has also found, based on the evidence before us, that the hospital’s decision to significantly restrict Mr. Vrugteveen’s liberty, by readmitting him on November 6, 2025, and his ongoing restriction, were warranted and necessary. Mr. Vrugteveen was about to be evicted from his home for triggering the fire alarm a second time, and he was fortunate that a bed at the Royal Ottawa was available to him at that time.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Vrugteveen, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with the Detention Order.
DATED this 24th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board