Re Conor M. Donnelly, 2025 CanLII 144711

Ontario Review Board

Re: Conor M. Donnelly

ORB File No: 8311

Hearing held on: Thursday, October 23, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Hageraats

Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. G. Boulais Mr. P. Capelle Mr. R. Rainboth

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Conor M. Donnelly Counsel: Mr. M. Davies

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. F. Wood

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 18, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 18, 2023, the accused, Conor M. Donnelly, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of murder and attempt murder, both contrary to the Criminal Code of (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Donnelly is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 18^th, 2024, which detains him in the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. On October 23^rd, 2025, a panel of the Review Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review the last disposition. Mr. Donnelly attended the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Davies. An Amended Hospital Report dated October 1^st, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1, the 2023 Victim Impact Statement was entered as Exhibit 2 and the 2024 Victim Impact Statement was entered as Exhibit No. 3.

3. The issues for this hearing were whether Mr. Donnelly continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage the risk.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

4. Dr. Wood, on behalf of the hospital, recommended a conditional discharge which includes the six conditions set out at page 61 of the amended Hospital Report dated October 21^st, 2025, with the addition of the following two conditions:

No. 7: Reside at B-871 Merivale Road, Ottawa, Ontario.

No. 8. – Consent to Treatment per s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code

5. Additionally, conditions 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d) and 4(e) of the existing detention disposition be added and the reporting requirement of 4(c) be reduced to not less than once every two weeks.

6. Ms. Dufort requested that the current detention disposition be renewed absent any changes. Mr. Davies joined with the hospital recommendation and advised that Mr. Donnelly consents to the inclusion of the consent to treatment provision.

Current Diagnoses

• Schizophrenia,
• Cannabis, alcohol, and stimulant (cocaine) use disorders, moderate to severe, in remission since 2018.

Index Offences

7. The particulars of the index offence can be summarized as follows: On November 14, 2021, Mr. Donnelly stabbed his mother multiple times causing her death. He also stabbed his stepfather multiple times although the stepfather survived.

Evidence

8. The Hospital Report dated October 1^st, 2025, entered as Exhibit 1 provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Donnelly’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board also heard from Dr. Wood.

9. Dr. Wood advised that Mr. Donnelly has been doing quite well although his frustration tolerance can cause impulsivity in with what he says and in not wanting to attend appointments. The treatment plan includes work with psychotherapist Ms. Chan and continued interactions with social worker, Mr. Robbins to help build tolerance skills. Both professionals have a good therapeutic relationship with Mr. Donnelly.

10. This reporting year no concerns were noted regarding psychosis or mania. The introduction of an antidepressant has assisted with symptoms of ADHD. Mr. Donnelly attends weekly for urine drug screens despite his challenging schedule as a sheet metal worker apprentice.

11. There are also no concerns surrounding Mr. Donnelly’s housing. He now lives with a cat. Mr. Donnelly has a prosocial friend that he met through the forensic program. He also benefits from the support of three maternal aunts. He has had minimal contact with his sister, biological father, stepmother and stepfather.

12. Medication compliance has been consistently good and Mr. Donnelly does not report side effects from the intramuscular psychotropic injections. The frequency of the injection was increased from every four weeks to every three while he was still an impatient as he described feeling the effects wearing off. Mr. Donnelly now employs learned CBT coping strategies in the days preceding the injection at three-week intervals.

13. There was one incident of cocaine use during the past reporting year, absent signs of decompensation, for which Mr. Donnelly expressed remorse.

14. A conditional discharge is recommended due to:

• adherence to an intramuscular injection schedule,
• ongoing negative urine screens,
• good appointment attendance.

These positive factors support the belief that if Mr. Donnelly decompensated, he would voluntarily return to hospital. The treatment team therefore feels that a Mental Health Act (MHA) Form 1 could be used to enable an assessment at The Ottawa Hospital, the Queensway Carleton Hospital, or at the Montfort Hospital. While Mr. Donnelly would have to meet MHA Box “A” criteria or remain on a voluntary basis, his history does not indicate he would refuse to cooperate. If admission was deemed necessary because of substance use, Dr. Wood opined that a brief stay in hospital should return Mr. Donnelly to his baseline. If required, he could be transferred to the ROMHC. If decompensation was attributable to medication non-compliance the treatment team would have advance notice and have time to either introduce an intervention plan or request an early hearing.

15. The treatment team would know if Mr. Donnelly had ingested cocaine by way of drug testing, or, as previously occurred, when the team recognized he was off his baseline. Also, it would be evident if he did not keep an appointment or was absent when scheduled to meet with Mr. Robins at his apartment. Therefore, issuance of an MHA Form 1 or a Form 2 would suffice if Mr. Donnelly breached a term of his Conditional Discharge attributable to medication non-compliance and/or substance use. This is because the re-emergence of psychotic symptoms would likely be seen within a couple of weeks.

16. Ms. Dufort cited the Hospital Report which references Mr. Donnelly’s discussions with Ms. Chan wherein he is said to have stated that he only wants to come for drug testing and programming on Fridays, his day off. She noted that the Hospital intends to reduce his reporting requirement to every two weeks to allow for social endeavours and other activities. Dr. Wood advised that the hospital agreed to this reduction because of Mr. Donnelly’s challenging work schedule. Mr. Donnelly also attends monthly appointments with Dr. Wood on Tuesday afternoons as his employer allows him to leave work early those days.

17. Dr. Wood also referenced paragraph 2, page 54 of the Hospital Report, reproduced below for ease of reference:

“Shortly afterward, however, Mr. Donnelly voiced frustration and irritability towards Ms. Chan where he asserted that she was “making up symptoms” and that he would not engage with her further if this was to continue. A team conference was held at this next scheduled appointment with Dr. Linthorst, where Mr. Donnelly’s response was explored. After psychoeducation was provided, Mr. Donnelly was understanding of the team’s responsibility to share information and monitor his clinical status. He further apologized, citing work-related stress.”

Dr. Wood advised that Mr. Donnelly’s irritability has since dissipated.

18. At the time of his cocaine relapse, Mr. Donnelly had used for an entire week which is why three positive urine drug screens (UDS) were recorded. This occurred on the anniversary of the index offences and of his mother’s death. Mr. Donnelly acknowledged the use of cocaine prior to providing the positive UDSs. The treatment team was aware that he had used as he was clearly off his baseline but did not feel that a Form 49 was required to enable an admission. Mr. Donnelly has continued to do well in the eleven months since this relapse. Dr. Wood is therefore satisfied that a Form 1 is sufficient to enable Mr. Donnelly’s return to hospital as required. Dr. Wood is unaware if when Mr. Donnelly breached the terms of his detention disposition by using cocaine, it was reported to the Review Board.

19. Responding to questions from Mr. Davies, Dr. Wood stated that Mr. Donnelly’s attitude towards his cocaine use is one of guilt and remorse and that he ties its use to the anniversary of his mother’s death. He does not want to put his current regression at risk by again using substances. Mr. Donnelly accepts he suffers from Schizophrenia and needs medication of the remainder of his life.

20. Dr. Wood advised that none of the text messages sent by Mr. Donnelly complaining that treatment team appointments were interfering with his work schedule equate to a push back against medication compliance. Mr. Donnelly continues to prioritize his work and conflicts with the treatment team have arisen when psychiatric oversight conflicts with his employment. Mr. Donnelly is doing well as a sheet metal apprentice. He raised the issue of caffeine pills with Dr. Linthorst who determined that a PRN prescription of Wellbutrin was the appropriate response. Responding to questions from a panel member, Dr. Wood stated that there is no indication of Wellbutrin misuse although the PRN dosage was recently increased from 300 to 450 mgs. Dr. Wood added that the prescribing of Wellbutrin was suggested by Dr. Linthorst.

21. Mr. Donnelly has not used alcohol since the age of 35, therefore, Dr. Wood is not concerned by his statement that he will have a drink after receiving an absolute discharge. Additionally, there is no established correlation between alcohol use and the onset of psychosis.

22. Ms. Dufort requested that the Victim Impact Statements from 2023 and 2024 be entered as exhibits, and they were so marked as Exhibit 2 and 3, respectively.

Closing Observations

23. Dr. Wood submitted that a loosening of the hospital recommendation from a detention disposition to a conditional discharge was weighed carefully. Despite an occurrence of cocaine use, Mr. Donnelly’s mental state did not decompensate. The occurrence resolved with disclosure of use, remorse, and ongoing support from the treatment team with whom he has a strong therapeutic alliance. Mr. Donnelly has previously remained in hospital on a voluntary basis. The Hospital recognizes that it can ask for an early hearing if a breach occurs due to non-compliance or substance use.

24. Ms. Dufort maintained her position that a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate due to the severity of the index offences. Mr. Donnelly has only resided in the community since August of 2024. There was repeated consumption of cocaine until confronted as well as a few incidents when he did not wish to cooperate with the treatment as noted at page 52 and 54 of Exhibit 1. His displeasure with Ms. Chan required team meetings following a communication breakdown with her.

25. Mr. Donnelly seems to prioritize his work over treatment despite a history of psychosis. Mr. Donnelly has a difficult work schedule with four 12-hour shifts and a Monday night course. Ms. Dufort submitted that not having to exercise a Form 49 does not equate towards moving towards a conditional discharge with an increased reporting requirement of every two weeks. The reliability of police to return Mr. Donnelly to hospital is uncertain. Further, requesting an early hearing for a breach is not an effective means to manage risk. The current detention disposition terms and conditions have not restricted Mr. Donnelly and therefore should continue for the coming year.

26. Mr. Davies supports the proposed conditional discharge with the inclusion of a residence condition. Mr. Donnelly has progressed well since the NCR finding. He is fully accepting that he has a mental disorder and requires medication. His employment is going well, and he has been living independently since August of 2025. Eleven months have passed since he last used cocaine, and he is remorseful for having done so. Mr. Donnelly is seen weekly in hospital. Others see him other days of the week. Were he to use cocaine it will be known and if he doesn’t come in for testing alarms will go off. If changes to Mr. Donnelly’s mental state are noted the hospital may decide to either monitor him in the community or issue a n MHA Form 1 or Form 2 or ask for an early hearing.

27. There is no evidence of medication non-compliance. Mr. Donnelly’s work/education schedule seems to have settled into a good pattern. A conditional discharge is therefore necessary and appropriate as long as Mr. Donnelly continues to engage with the treatment team, take his meds and stay away from substances.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

28. Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from a criminal offence.

29. In determining whether Mr. Donnelly continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

30. The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Donnelly continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at its independent determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and ultimately accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Wood that Mr. Donnelly continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and the evidence that Mr. Donnelly suffers from Schizophrenia, previously complicated by the use of cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol. This panel, in arriving at its independent determination also relies on the Risk Profile contained at page 59 of the Hospital Report which states in part:

Mr. Donnelly presents as a moderate risk of future violence, namely uttering threats and engaging in violence towards individuals he believes to be targeting him while also in a psychotic state.

(b) Necessary and Appropriate

31. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Donnelly continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Donnelly’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

32. As noted in the Hospital Report Mr. Donnelly has lived independently in the community since his August 2024 discharge from hospital. Due to full time employment, he is no longer receiving Ontario Disability Benefits. The panel is well aware of the severity of the index offences and fully grasps Ms. Dufort’s concern that Mr. Donnelly may be prioritizing his career advancement to the detriment of his treatment plan. He is nonetheless handling the stress of juggling full-time employment, education and forensic reporting requirements very well. Despite a notable setback involving cocaine use and some friction with the treatment team Mr. Donnelly’s rehabilitation and community reintegration continues on a positive trajectory. The panel is optimistic that ongoing therapeutic efforts will improve his sub-optimal tolerance skills.

33. There have been no issues surrounding medication compliance as Mr. Donnelly remains on a long acting injectable, the frequency of which was increased because of his self-report of symptom manifestation. This speaks to the likelihood that an MHA Form 1 will be sufficient to return this patient to hospital for assessment and readmission as required. When Mr. Donnelly last used cocaine, some 11 months prior to this hearing it was apparent to the treatment that he was off his baseline. The panel therefore recognizes the ongoing need for rigorous forensic oversight.

34. Finally, upon reviewing Mr. Donnelly’s diagnosis, the panel noted the absence of consideration of a diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Dr. Wood testified that Mr. Donnelly is prescribed Wellbutrin, an antidepressant commonly prescribed to attenuate the risk of impulsivity and recognized for its off-label use for ADHD. As Mr. Donnelly has not been diagnosed as suffering from a mood disorder or from ADHD, concerns were raised regarding the medication’s potential for abuse, given his prior history of cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol use disorders. Additional concern arose when it was reported that Mr. Donnelly had independently increased his dosage beyond the recommended level and has a history of frequent use of other stimulants, including energy drinks and coffee consumption.

35. Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Donnelly poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs is a Conditional Discharge.

Conclusion

36. In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Wood and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Donnelly’s mental condition and his reintegration into society and other needs.

DATED this 18th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. P. Capelle

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board