Re: Tyler H. Edgar
ORB File No: 6517
Hearing held on: Friday, November 28, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (virtual hearing)
Pursuant to: Section 672.81 of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alt. Chairperson: Ms. L. Maunder
Members Dr. P. L. Darby
Dr. G. Nexhipi
Ms. S. Clapp
Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Tyler H. Edgar Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
The person in charge of the Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. L. Lefebvre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
Amicus Curiae: Ms. M. Perez
REASONS FOR RULINGS ON MOTIONS
(Dated December 8, 2025)
Background
Mr. Edgar suffers from schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, and substance use disorders. On April 16, 2014, he was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on several Criminal Code charges. He has remained under the jurisdiction of the Board since that date. Mr. Edgar is currently bound by a disposition dated November 27, 2023, detaining him at Waypoint. By the time the Board hears the merits of his current annual hearing, Mr. Edgar will have been in seclusion for more than six years.
Mr. Edgar’s annual review was initially scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2024, but has been adjourned several times for the Board to consider preliminary issues, briefly summarized as follows:
Waypoint brought a motion to the original hearing panel for an order that certain disposition information be withheld from the accused pursuant to s. 672.51(3)1. After hearing the motion (in the absence of Mr. Edgar and his counsel), the panel decided to appoint amicus curiae to represent Mr. Edgar’s interests on the motion at a later date.
The motion was reheard, with amicus, before a panel of the Board chaired by Mr. J. Goldenberg (the “Goldenberg panel”). The Goldenberg panel ordered certain disposition information withheld from Mr. Edgar on the basis that it was likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or would seriously impair the treatment or recovery of the accused. The Goldenberg panel Order was made available to Mr. Edgar and his counsel, but not the Reasons for it.
Mr. Edgar’s annual hearing was scheduled to be heard on June 13, 2025, but was adjourned after counsel for Mr. Edgar filed a Notice of Motion to challenge the constitutionality of the provisions of the Code that allow for disposition information to be withheld from the accused.
The constitutional issue was heard on September 17, 2025, and dismissed on November 4, 2025, for Reasons delivered the same day.
- In June 2025, when the last scheduled date for the annual hearing was adjourned, November 28, 2025, was scheduled for the annual hearing. Unfortunately, the in-person hearing was cancelled on November 27, 2025, due to weather – there was a winter storm warning for the area, including a direction that all non-essential travel should be avoided. Mr. Edgar did not consent to the annual hearing proceeding by videoconference. As a result, the hearing convened by videoconference to discuss rescheduling as well as any other preliminary issues that would streamline the hearing itself on the newly chosen date. Mr. Edgar consented to Mr. Davies acting on his behalf for these purposes, in Mr. Edgar’s absence.
The Preliminary Issues
The Goldenberg panel’s decision to withhold a certain category of information from Mr. Edgar (and his counsel), pertained to two Addenda to the Hospital Report. As a practical matter, the order means that Mr. Edgar and Mr. Davies did not receive the Addenda and received redacted versions of the Hospital Report and external seclusion consultation reports that are referred to in the Hospital Report. Other terms of the Order require that Mr. Edgar and his counsel be excluded from the hearing while that same category of information is addressed in the evidence, restrict access to the evidence and transcripts, and impose a publication ban on the information.
Several months have passed since the Goldenberg panel’s Order and, as the date for the annual hearing approached, the Hospital updated their Report. The updated Report referred to an updated External Seclusion Report dated September 10, 2025, from Dr. Naidoo (the “updated Naidoo Report”). The preliminary issues that arose related to the disclosure of a document referred to in the updated Naidoo Report and the withholding of the same class of information as that withheld pursuant to the Goldenberg panel Order in both documents.
Disclosure of the Ball Summary
In the updated Naidoo Report, Dr. Naidoo referred to having reviewed a “Waypoint External Seclusion Consult report prepared by behaviour support specialist Jamie-Lee Ball, dated September 3, 2025” (the “Ball Summary”). In the days leading up to the scheduled annual hearing on November 28th, Mr. Davies asked for disclosure of that document. The hospital resisted disclosure of the document.
Ms. Lefebvre, on behalf of the hospital, explained that despite being named a report, the document was largely duplicative of other information already included in the Hospital Report. Ms. Ball compiled data regarding seclusion and treatment. Ms. Lefebvre indicated she was not taking “strong opposition” to its disclosure – her original position was informed by the proximity in time to the annual hearing (particularly given the issues around withholding aspects of it, as discussed below).
Mr. Davies argued that the fact that the Ball Summary was partly repetitious of the Hospital Report did not subtract from its relevance and likely added to it. He wanted to be able to test the quality of the information Dr. Naidoo was acting upon in his Report.
The panel agreed the Ball Summary was relevant and disclosable for the reasons articulated by Mr. Davies (not really challenged by Ms. Lefebvre). We found the Ball Summary should be disclosed.
Application to Withhold Disposition Information – Unredacted Naidoo Report and Unredacted Ball Summary
On behalf of the Hospital, Ms. Lefebvre asked that, with regards to the undated Naidoo Report and the Ball Summary, we order a certain category of information (the same as covered by the Goldenberg panel) withheld from Mr. Edgar.
Before being excluded for the motion to be addressed, Mr. Davies reiterated the position he had taken previously on behalf of Mr. Edgar – he was opposed to any withholding of information. He argued that withholding information from an accused was counterproductive to the goals of Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code – while there might be short term benefit, ultimately it would be counterproductive in terms of building a trusting relationship with the team and moving forward. Mr. Davies, nonetheless, acknowledged that we ought not to be relitigating the issue decided by the Goldenberg panel.
Once Mr. Davies was excused, Ms. Lefebvre confirmed that the information she sought to withhold was the same category of information that Waypoint asked withheld before the Goldenberg panel. Further, as Ms. Lefebvre pointed out, some of the information she sought to have withheld, was the same information as previously withheld – it was simply repeated in the two new documents. The other references were updates with regard to the same category of information. Ms. Lefebvre identified the portions of both the updated Naidoo Report and the Ball Summary that Waypoint sought to withhold from Mr. Edgar.
In the absence of Mr. Edgar and his counsel, Dr. Mishra testified on the motion and explained why, in his opinion, disclosure of the information “would be likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or would seriously impair the treatment or recovery of the accused”. His evidence essentially mirrored his evidence before the Goldenberg panel.
Ms. Perez agreed that the information Waypoint sought to withhold was either the exact same information as had been ordered withheld by the Goldenberg panel or was the same information in spirit. Like Mr. Davies, she acknowledged it made little sense to relitigate the issue decided by the Goldenberg panel, but reiterated Mr. Edgar’s opposition to any information being withheld from him.
The panel was satisfied that all proposed redactions were information in the same category of information (albeit some updated) as that covered by the order of the Goldenberg panel. We were also satisfied that the evidence of Dr. Mishra established the basis for concluding that disclosure of the information would be likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or would seriously impair the treatment or recovery of the accused.
We do not propose to explain our reasons for this conclusion further – to do so would require a discussion of the evidence that we are ordering withheld from Mr. Edgar (and thus withholding of a complete version of these Reasons from Mr. Edgar). For all intents and purposes, we agreed with the Goldenberg panel.
For these reasons, we ordered that the unredacted versions of the Naidoo Report and the Ball Summary be withheld from Mr. Edgar and made associated orders.
For clarity, the updated Naidoo Report is disposition information Waypoint intends to rely on at the annual hearing. By contrast, the Ball Summary is not. Mr. Davies may seek to rely on it.
Other Issues / Directions
The first available date to all the parties for the in person annual hearing was February 17, 2026. The annual hearing was rescheduled for that date. The parties agreed that securing the earliest date was more important than retaining the panel, although to the extent possible, the members of this panel will reconvene for the annual hearing.
It is possible, given the date secured for the annual hearing, that the hospital will once again have further updated information in the same category as that which to date has been withheld. We urged the parties to be prepared to address any further application necessary quickly and efficiently at the beginning of the annual hearing. That means, at a minimum, that redacted copies of any new documents should be provided to the parties and unredacted versions (with information showing the redactions) should be prepared, and ideally distributed in advance, to the panel and amicus to review.
DATED this 8th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. L. Maunder
Alternative Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- Section 672.51(3) allows for information to be withheld from the accused and sets out the basis upon which the Board may make such an order. Other provisions speak to related orders (see ss. 672.51(6), (7), (8), (11) and 672.5 (10)) – removal of the accused during testimony related to withheld information, access to exhibits and transcripts, etc. For ease of reference, these Reasons will refer to ss.672.51(3) but all necessary associated orders were being considered along with that section.