Ontario Review Board
Re: Sebastien Durandis
ORB File No: 8788
Hearing held on: Monday, October 20, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(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: Sebastien Durandis
Counsel: Mr. D. Smith
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 18, 2025)
Introduction
On May 21st, 2025, the accused, Sebastian Durandis, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of Assault with a Weapon, Assault by Choking, Possess Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose and Mischief (by Wilfully Damaging laptops and computer equipment - exceeding $5000).all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
On October 20th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital or the ROMHC, to conduct Mr. Durandis’ initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Durandis was in attendance and represented by his counsel Mr. Dominique Smith. Also present were Mr. Durandis’ mother, the Hospital social worker and Case Manager, Mr. Steven Su.
A Hospital Report dated October 16th, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
- The Hospital recommendations for Mr. Durandis’ initial hearing are set out at page 18 of the hospital, report, reproduced below for ease of reference.
to attend within or outside of the hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes;
hospital and grounds privileges, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;
hospital and grounds privileges, indirectly supervised;
to enter the community of Ottawa, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;
to enter the community of Ottawa, indirectly supervised
to live in the community of Ottawa in an accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre or his or her designate
travel passes within the Province of Ontario, indirectly supervised with an approved itinerary at the discretion of person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre or his or her designate
refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;
not to communicate directly or indirectly with the victims except required court attendances.
when living in the community, report to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre or his or her designate not less than twice per month
- Ms. Dufort, Counsel for the Attorney-General, joined in the Hospital’s recommendations. Mr. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Durandis, advised that he anticipates conceding the ongoing presence of significant threat and will advocate for a conditional discharge on behalf of his client.
Current Diagnoses
- Paranoid Schizophrenia, Multiple Episodes, (currently in remission).
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences is set out in the hospital report and reproduced:
“See below verbatim account according to crown synopsis:
On the 19th day of June 2024, in the City of Ottawa, the accused, Sebastien URANDIS, was residing at 1 Mullcraft Cres, a residence he shared with multiple roommates. At roughly 6:15 PM, the accused called out to one of his roommates asking to speak with him. The roommate came to the accused calmly, at which point the accused grabbed his roommate around the throat in a sudden and completely unprovoked attack (count 1). A struggle ensued in the foyer and driveway of the residence, during which the accused punched the roommate several times. As the roommate tried to flee the scene in the driveway, the accused brandished a knife and chased the roommate away from the residence (count 2 and 3). The roommate ran several hundred metres to a nearby mosque for safety.
After the roommate ran away from the residence, the accused proceeded back inside the residence where he went into the unlocked rooms of his roommates. He used the knife to cause extensive damage to laptops and computer monitors belonging to two separate roommates. The equipment was completely destroyed and rendered unusable. The replacement costs for the damaged equipment totaled roughly $3700 for the first roommate (count 4) and $5400 for the second roommate (count 5), with the costs of some items still pending. The accused was arrested at the scene and held for a bail hearing in mental health court. The accused suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and is completely non-compliant with medication. He lacks insight regarding his condition, and several of his family members and roommates have contacted police in the last few months expressing serious concern for their safety in the accused's presence.
Evidence
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated August 22nd, 2025, as Exhibit 1. The document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Durandis’ personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offence(s). 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. Alabi. The Doctor noted that Mr. Durandis discontinued his prescribed medications while residing in Canada, returned to his native Haiti and there assaulted his father. After his return to Canada, the index offences occurred.
At this juncture the hospital does not yet know Mr. Durandis well and he continues to receive his intramuscular injection at the Montfort Hospital. Responding to questions from Ms. Dufort, Dr. Alabi advised that henceforth Mr. Durandis will receive his intramuscular injection at the ROMHC.
Notwithstanding that his patient is currently in remission, Dr. Alabi opined that it is premature to advocate for a conditional discharge. Mr. Durandis first requires the opportunity to demonstrate that he can successfully be reintegrated into the community. Further, a detention disposition enables Mr. Durandis’ return to hospital in the event he begins to decompensate. Currently, he is seen weekly in person and Mr. Steve Su, his case manager, also monitors him by way of phone calls. Absent this degree of supervision, Dr. Alabi opined that Mr. Durandis may again decompensate in a similar manner to what was seen at the time of the index offences.
Dr. Alabi testified that consideration of a conditional discharge is premature notwithstanding that Mr. Durandis remains subject to bail conditions. It is still early days and uncertain if Mr. Durandis would comply with a request to return to hospital pursuant to the Mental Health Act absent a detention disposition, Mr. Durandis would have to be formed under Box “A” of the Mental Health Act. This would likely see him brought to a non-forensic hospital that would not know his psychiatric history. Dr. Alabi noted that Mr. Durandis had cancelled a number of appointments at the Montfort Hospital which could complicate the requirement of a 7-day window for the completion of a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act.
In the event of medication non-compliance Mr. Durandis’ probability of relapse is “elevated.” The doctor referenced the circumstances surrounding Mr. Durandis’ two previous relapses when he lost the ability to engage and to want treatment. Dr. Alabi described his patient’s presentation as “guarded” when he decompensates.
Mr. Durandis currently lives with his mother. She plans to move back and forth between Canada and Haiti where she operates a business. The apartment rent is not subsidized, and the unit has not yet been assessed by the forensic team. Therefore, its appropriateness as approved accommodation is still unknown.
Mr. Durandis’ history of aggression towards his family has to date not been fully explored. He has not yet been asked if information can be shared with his family, although he attends appointments with them which indicates he is likely to consent to information sharing. It appears Mr. Durandis remains well supported by his family. There are no signs that they would not cooperate with the hospital in the event of another relapse.
Mr. Durandis has been unemployed since May of 2025. Unemployment as well as chronic knee pain are ongoing stressors for him. He continues to look for a position in human resources and has engaged with the vocational therapist. Dr. Alabi opined that Mr. Durandis is capable of full-time employment.
Responding to questions from Mr. Smith, Dr. Alabi agreed that at the time of the writing of the August 22, 2025, Hospital Report, Mr. Durandis’ future violence risk was rated as “mild to moderate”. Although mentally stable at this time, this does not negate his degree of risk which is currently mitigated because he is followed by both the Montfort Hospital and the ROMHC. Dr. Alabi added, that when psychotic, Mr. Durandis engaged in two assaults.
Dr. Alabi is unaware if Mr. Durandis has contacted any of the victims of the index offences, breached non-attendance requirements, possesses any weapons, or applied for licenses to obtain any weapons. The Doctor agreed that there is no reason to believe that if prohibitory terms to address the aforementioned concerns were added to his existing bail conditions that he would not follow them.
Dr. Alabi testified that he was unaware of any recent treatment non-compliance by his patient. Page 14 of the hospital report indicates that Mr. Durandis stated he has no option but to keep taking medication. Dr. Alabi characterized this comment as “an opportunity for growth.” However, even if the treatment team is confident that Mr. Durandis will remain medication adherent, there is still no guarantee that he will not relapse due to another trigger, such as stress.
As indicated at page 16, of the Hospital Report, Mr. Durandis has demonstrated some insight vis-à-vis his mental disorder. He is now able to connect his decompensation/symptoms in Haiti with his ongoing need for medication.
Responding to questions from the panel, Dr. Alabi agreed that living with his mother represents a protective factor for Mr. Durandis. Further, that his family would be at risk in the event he stopped taking his anti-psychotic medications. Reference was made to page 13 of the Hospital Report, reproduced below for ease of reference:
“He was brought to the hospital by police due to making threats towards mother and sister. He had paranoid delusions that his mother and sister were poisoning him. He made threats of killing whoever is poisoning him. He threatened to burn the person and burn their house.”
Prior to coming under the Board’s jurisdiction, a bail condition that he remain adherent to prescribed medications was a motivating factor for Mr. Durandis. Dr. Alabi estimated that if Mr. Durandis refused his intramuscular anti-psychotic, it could take up to three months for him to decompensate. In the past when he was taking antipsychotic medication by mouth, decompensation following non-compliance would likely have occurred within a couple of weeks.
Ms. Dufort advised that she was unable to identify the bail condition permitting Mr. Durandis to change his address notwithstanding Mr. Smith’s contention that his client has respected all bail conditions. Following an adjournment to speak with his client, Mr. Smith advised that Mr. Durandis has always resided with a surety but did not comply with the bail condition regarding notification of change of address.
Closing Submissions
Dr. Alabi reiterated that given his history, when Mr. Durandis falls away from treatment his risk increases. In addition to the index offences, there have been threats to his father and to his family while psychotic. When unwell, Mr. Durandis’ insight is lost, and a detention disposition therefore represents the least onerous and necessary mechanism to mitigate his risk to public safety. Dr. Alabi noted that his patient’s bail, change of address notification requirement was not adhered to.
Ms. Dufort submitted that she remains ad idem with the hospital that a detention disposition is required. She submitted that bail conditions 4, 5 and 6 should be incorporated into Mr. Durandis’ detention disposition. She further submitted that the consequence of a bail breach is a new criminal charge. Mr. Durandis attacked his father in 2023. At that time, it was too late to manage a risk that had already materialized. Reference was made to the second paragraph at page 13 of the hospital report wherein Mr. Durandis threatened to hurt his mother and sister. Again, it was too late to manage a danger that had already materialized.
According to Ms. Dufort, Mr. Durandis is unaware of the signs of early decompensation and unable to verbalize the symptoms he experiences. Therefore, bringing him to hospital pursuant to a Mental Health Act Form 1 for assessment by a psychiatrist unaware of his forensic background is ineffective and risky. Proactive tools to manage his risk are necessary. A detention disposition is therefore required to enable the issuance of a Form 49 in the event of another decompensation. Ms. Dufort added that arrest by the police for having breached conditions of a disposition is not an effective manner to manage risk to public safety.
Mr. Smith submitted that whatever risk Mr. Durandis poses can be managed pursuant to a conditional discharge. Mr. Durandis has been on judicial release for some 16 months absent any indication that he has contacted, let alone attempted to contact any of the individuals identified as prohibited within his bail release. Mr. Smith conceded that his client had breached condition two of the bail release.
Mr. Smith submitted that the proper risk management tool is closely monitoring Mr. Durandis’ ’medication compliance. Prior to June 26th, 2024, there were instances of non-compliance and assaultive behaviour. Since then, strict adherence to a treatment plan and medication compliance have continued. Mr. Smith submitted that his client demonstrated a degree of insight by stating “I have no choice” which presumes he will continue to adhere to his medication regimen. There is no evidence that alcohol abuse, substance abuse or anger triggered decompensation. Mr. Smith opined that if his client can be trusted to remain medication compliant going forward, decompensation will not occur. Despite Mr. Durandis’ imperfect track record, a conditional discharge remains an available disposition. Mr. Durand is has remained stable for 16 months due to medication compliance and family support.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
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.
In determining whether Mr. Durandis 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.
Mr. Durandis risk factors mirror those present when he was found Not Criminally Responsible on May 21, 2025. These risk factors, referenced at page 17 of the Hospital Report reveal that notwithstanding that this patient’s psychosis is currently in remission he still presents with underlying anxiety, depression, and situational stress. Further although recently medication compliant, this was not the case preceding the commission of the index offences. Absent medication adherence he remains susceptible to mental decompensation, loss of insight and apt to again commit acts that are of a serious criminal nature as seen as the time of the index offences.
- Given the foregoing, The Board independently finds that Mr. Durandis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Alabi that Mr. Durandis continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report in which evidence of major mental illness regarding this patient is contained.
(b) Necessary and Appropriate
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Durandis 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. Durandis’ needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code
The panel is unable to accept Mr. Smith’s contention that his client can be managed on a Conditional Discharge. That presumption of mental stability relies on Mr. Durandis’ compliance with the bail condition that he does not attempt to contact any individuals that he was prohibited from contacting and because he has remained medication adherent. While we recognize that the aforementioned bail condition was respected, the panel also considered that Mr. Durandis breached another of the bail conditions by changing addresses without prior permission to do so. Secondly, medication compliance in and of itself is insufficient to ensure the protection of the public in the event Mr. Durandis was to be managed under a conditional discharge.
At this juncture, appropriateness and stability of Mr. Durandis’ housing is unknown. While his mother intends to live with him when she is in Ottawa, she operates a business in Haiti and will therefore be absent for significant periods of time. Further, Mr. Durandis is unemployed and how he can continue to pay market rent and remain where he is has not been established. These factors will need to be considered by the treatment team in determining the appropriateness of Mr. Durandis’s accommodation. This has not yet occurred which is why the treatment team’s ability to assess and approve Mr. Durandis’ housing is essential and therefore necessitates that he is subject to a Detention Disposition.
Although Mr. Durandis has now remained medication compliant for sixteen months, he has a history of falling away from treatment, decompensating, and presenting an elevated risk to public safety. In addition to the index offences, this includes attacking his father in response to paranoid delusions, threatening to kill his family and threatening to burn an individual and their home. He is susceptible to stressors, notably unemployment and chronic knee pain which could precipitate another decompensation notwithstanding adherence to antipsychotic medication.
Despite previous decompensations, Mr. Durandis is unable to recognize and verbalize his symptoms. He is described as guarded when he decompensates. Therefore, it is unlikely that he would agree to return to hospital in the absence of a Form 49. In the event he was returned to hospital under the auspices of the Mental Health Act, his guardedness would further limit Mr. Durandis’ ability to communicate his symptoms, thereby elevating the likelihood that he would not meet MHA criteria for involuntary admission. In this scenario, he could be released by a non-forensic hospital that was unaware of his psychiatric history and the risk he poses to public safety absent forensic oversight.
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Durandis poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a detention disposition with the same privileges as set out in the Hospital Report.
Conclusion
- In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Alabi 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. Durandis’ 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