Re Keith Benoit, 2025 CanLII 144715

Ontario Review Board

Re: Keith Benoit

ORB File No: 8064

Hearing held on: Tuesday, December 1, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan

Dr. R. Cormier Mr. D. Sandor

Mr. A. Bernardo

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Keith Benoit

Amicus Curaie Mr. M. Davies

Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. J. Gojer

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 24, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 4, 2022, Mr. Keith Benoit was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Benoit is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated January 8, 2025, which ordered that he be conditionally discharged from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa (“Royal Ottawa”), subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. This Disposition requires that Mr. Benoit report to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa not less than once every three months and that he refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect, with Mr. Scott Leckie.

3. On December 1, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Benoit was present at the hearing. Mr. Michael Davies appeared as Amicus.

5. A Hospital Report, dated October 28, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Benoit 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.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Benoit 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 conditional discharge.

Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:

8. Delusional Disorder in chemical remission.

Position of the Parties

9. Dr. Gojer, as representative of the hospital and as the most responsible physician, recommended a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge order, with no changes. Counsel for the Attorney-General joined the hospital in this recommendation.

10. Mr. Benoit requested an Absolute Discharge. In the alternative, should this Board find that an Absolute Discharge was not appropriate, he would agree to a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition, without any changes.

Index Offence

11. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offence are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons as follows:

“Mr. Benoit has been known to the Ottawa Police Service for a number of years. He has left numerous messages relating to his theories concerning a number of homicides. At one point, he had been charged with harassment and mischief, but those charges were eventually stayed.

In September 2014, Mr. Benoit created a website in which he claimed that Mr. Leckie, the victim of the index offence, was an accomplice of Colonel Russell Williams and claimed that Mr. Leckie had been involved in a number of homicides. Mr. Benoit was charged with criminal harassment and uttering threats. These charges were resolved by a peace bond entered into by the accused in March 2016.

Concerning the current charge, on June 14, 2017, Mr. Benoit created a LinkedIn post where he stated: “Warning to all female viewers of this post: This is Scott Leckie, he is 52 years of age. He has lived in many cities in Canada and is also a murder suspect in some of those cities as well.” The link went on to allege that Mr. Leckie was an accomplice of Colonel Williams and added that the reason he was still at large was because of people in the Conservative party, and various police forces. The post went on to state: “if you or anybody you should know comes across this “FREAK” on a bike path, walking trail or anywhere else secluded, run and call 911.” On the post was a picture of Mr. Leckie.

On August 15, 2019, Mr. Leckie received a telephone call from the accused while he was at work. Mr. Benoit told him he knew here he worked and where he was living. Mr. Leckie also found a Twitter feed which contained numerous posts by the accused accusing him of being responsible for several murders. The post also contained a photograph of Mr. Leckie’s sister.”

12. Mr. Benoit’s history is outlined in the hospital report and is accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“He met his milestones at appropriate ages. He experienced some abuse as a child together with his sisters at the hands of his father and ultimately left school prior to completing grade 10. He has a good history of employment, working primarily in the construction field.

Mr. Benoit married his wife in 2000, and they lived together until separating in 2013. He does not have any children.

Mr. Benoit stated that he began drinking alcohol at 17 years but admirably had his last beer in 2019. He shared that he had used cannabis in the past, but he last used 10 years ago. He denied having used any other illicit substances.

The Hospital Report goes on to note Mr. Benoit’s criminal record. Mr. Benoit began having difficulties in 1994 when he was convicted of impaired driving. His record also includes convictions for

• 1997: Assault with a weapon and assault

• 2003: Fail to comply with the conditions of an undertaking and uttering threats

• 2003: Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle

Mr. Benoit’s history of struggle with major mental illness engenders some sympathy following a reading of the Hospital Report. He first saw a psychiatrist in 1987 after he reported that his father had sexually abused him. There seems to have been little further mental health supports or contacts for a period of many years. According to a further report by Dr. Kunjukrishnan in 2011, Mr. Benoit was referred to psychiatrist Dr. Ward by a probation officer, and was diagnosed with “paranoid personality disorder, rule out schizophrenia, rule out antisocial personality disorder”. According to a further report prepared by Dr. Ward in 2015, it was believed that Mr. Benoit had a delusional disorder.

In a report prepared by Dr. Ahmed in February 2021, it is indicated that Mr. Benoit probably met the criteria for the diagnosis of delusional disorder-persecutory- type.”

Course since Last Disposition

13. Mr. Benoit’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraph is relevant to this hearing:

“Despite maintaining the same delusions, he has refrained from spontaneously sharing them with our team. This is in contrast with the year prior when he would passionately speak of his delusions and the delusions would dominate the conversation.”

Evidence at the Hearing

14. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Gojer. Dr. Gojer testified as follows:

a) Mr. Benoit’s Seroquel dose was just increased, from 100mgs to 400mgs at night.

b) For the reasons set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Benoit remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

15. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Gojer testified:

a) Mr. Benoit is still looking up information about the victim of the Index Offence, even though he is receiving a long-acting injection (“LAI”) of Intrenza, in addition to the Seroquel.

b) Mr. Benoit suffers from a delusional system that is deeply entrenched, or what the medical team refers to as “encapsulated.”

c) Mr. Benoit is not acting on his delusional beliefs. However, should he discontinue his antipsychotic medications, his delusional intensity would increase to the extent that he would cause serious psychological harm to the victim of the Index Offence.

d) Mr. Benoit is a very pleasant person to work with. He has not presented any management problems while he has been on his medication regimen.

e) Mr. Benoit suffers from a delusional system that drives his conduct.

f) He is a very honest person, and he has admitted that he would stop his LAI medication, should he receive an absolute discharge. He would continue with his Seroquel, however, as he finds it helps his sleep.

g) Mr. Benoit is externally motivated to take his LAI medication. If he were to stop taking it, his delusions would intensify, and he would act on them. The risk is psychological harm, rather than physical harm.

16. In response to questions from Amicus, Dr. Gojer testified:

a) Mr. Benoit is capable to consent to treatment. There is a possibility that treatment with Seroquel alone might be sufficient to protect the safety of the public, without the need to continue with his LAI. The plan is to decrease the next dose of his LAI by 50 percent, and to discontinue it completely three months later. The treatment team would then have to increase their level of monitoring, to make sure Mr. Benoit does not experience a decompensation in his mental state.

b) It is important that this “experiment” happen while he is still under the auspices of the Board. The treatment team is speculating whether he needs both antipsychotics. Should they find that Seroquel is protective enough on its own, they would recommend an Absolute Discharge next year.

c) Cognitive behavioral therapy is not helpful to treat Mr. Benoit’s delusions.

d) He has made no attempt to contact the victim of the Index Offence.

17. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Gojer testified:

a) If Mr. Benoit’s mental state were to decompensate after the discontinuation of his LAI, he would not recognize his symptoms. At this point, the treatment team does not know whether Seroquel alone would be enough to manage his risk to public safety.

b) There is no doubt in his mind that Mr. Benoit would cease taking his LAI upon receiving an Absolute Discharge, even if it were determined that he needed it to manage his symptoms. He would not return to the hospital voluntarily if he were to decompensate. Unless the hospital’s experiment of stopping his LAI were successful, Mr. Benoit would pose a real risk of causing psychological harm that would be criminal in nature, if he were to decompensate after having been granted an Absolute Discharge. The risk would be real and not speculative. The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public when it relates to psychological harm, as opposed to physical harm.

c) Mr. Benoit has no insight into his need for LAI medication to treat his delusional system. This lack of insight does pose a real risk to the safety of the public.

d) Mr. Benoit is not currently connected with any non-forensic team, but the plan is to establish those connections.

18. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

19. Having heard all the evidence and submissions of the parties, this Board finds that Mr. Benoit continues to remain a significant threat to the safety of the public.

20. 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 expert evidence of Dr. Gojer, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

21. The evidence is quite clear, as outlined in paragraph 16 of these Reasons, that Mr. Benoit meets all the criteria to be found to be a significant threat to public safety. He has made it clear that he would stop taking his long-acting injectable. It is highly likely that his symptoms would resurface if he were to do so; he would then pose a psychological risk to the victim and harass police. Mr. Benoit does not see himself as having a mental illness. He believes that the Seroquel may be conferring upon him some stability, but he does not feel the same way about his LAI.

22. The Board has no difficulty in concluding that Mr. Benoit satisfies the test set out in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, in which Justice Tulloch reviewed the relevant test at paragraph 37:

“The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological [page195] harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.”

23. The Board understands that it must make a positive finding of significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board has no problem in making this finding, based on the evidence before us. The “experiment” is just an experiment, and pursuant to the criteria set out in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration is the safety of the public. The hospital has a very safe plan to execute their experiment, which protects the safety of the public and may put Mr. Benoit on the path to an Absolute Discharge. This experiment is by its nature highly speculative, and it would be best undertaken while Mr. Benoit is still under the authority of the Board.

24. Keith Benoit remains a significant threat primarily due to his persistent delusional disorder, which is in partial remission but not fully resolved. His delusions, particularly those targeting Mr. Scott Leckie, continue to pose a risk of psychological harm. Despite improvements in his behavior and compliance with treatment, Mr. Benoit lacks insight into his mental illness and the unfounded nature of his beliefs. He has expressed that he would stop taking his medication if granted an absolute discharge, which would likely lead to a resurgence of his delusions and increase the risk of psychological harm to Mr. Leckie and potential harassment of the police.

25. The conditional discharge has been effective in managing his behavior and ensuring compliance with treatment, but his delusions remain a concern. Continued supervision and medication are necessary to mitigate the risk of psychological harm to the public.

26. 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. Benoit, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge 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