Re: Padraig Teggart
ORB File No: 8399
Hearing held on: Thursday, January 16, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. MacIntyre, K.C. Members: Dr. K. Patel Dr. W. Loza Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Padraig Teggart Counsel: Mr. A. Rastgou
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 26, 2025)
Introduction
On June 28, 2023, Padraig Teggart was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of attempt murder, contrary to the Criminal Code. Further, Mr. Teggart was designated by the Court as a high risk accused (HRA) pursuant to s. 672.64 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Teggart is subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition of February 9, 2024, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences with privileges up to and including to enter the community, escorted by staff. The disposition, however, includes the s. 672.64(3) Criminal Code qualification that any absence from the hospital should be for medical reasons or a purpose necessary for the accused’s treatment.
On January 16, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) to conduct Mr. Teggart’s annual review and to make a disposition further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
The parties presented their initial positions prior to the hearing of the evidence. The hospital advocated no change to Mr. Teggart’s disposition though recognizing that without the restrictions required as a high risk accused, the hospital would have been requesting additional privileges. The hospital clarified that Mr. Teggart’s privilege in his current disposition to enter the community escorted by staff is for the purpose of recreation and community reintegration.
The Crown Attorney agreed with the hospital’s position but added that Mr. Teggart’s parents would like their son to be required to respect a 200-metre perimeter restriction from their home and workplace.
The hospital had no objection to the Crown’s proposed amendment and Mr. Rastgou agreed with the recommendations of the hospital and Crown. Accordingly, there was a joint submission for a continuation of Mr. Teggart’s disposition with the amendments proposed.
Index Offences
- Last year’s Reasons for Disposition outline the index offence as follows:
“The victim of the offence is Janice McDonald-Teggart, the mother of Padraig Teggart. The offence occurred on May 11, 2022, at the family home in Pickering.
Ms. McDonald-Teggart was home alone with her son, when suddenly and without warning, she was attacked by him. He struck her in the head with an unknown object causing her to become disoriented. The accused was in possession of a knife, which he used in the assault causing serious injuries. She fled from the kitchen area to the hallway, where she was violently attacked and forced head first into a wall. She was briefly unconscious. She then attempted to flee the home through a laundry-room garage door entrance. She was prevented from leaving by the accused who told her she couldn’t leave. He forced her to the ground and choked her until she was unconscious. The accused then cut his mother with a knife or scissors causing significant facial wounds.
Ms. McDonald-Teggart regained consciousness and was able to escape to the driveway. The accused pursued her to the driveway and continued the assault. The accused pinned her on the ground and then dragged her by the hair into the garage. The accused then entered the house. Several witnesses called the police who heard the victim screaming for help. The accused exited the house on the arrival of the police and was arrested without incident.
The victim suffered extensive injuries: skull fracture, damaged orbital bone with impaired vision to her left eye, a broken nose, and multiple lacerations to her face and hands that required stiches. She also required reconstructive surgery to her nose and eyes, and had to have titanium plates implanted in the area of her eye.
Ms. McDonald-Teggart advised the police that on the morning of the assault, the accused had asked her for money. She refused to give him money and he made a comment to the effect of, “I could just stab you or cut you”. He did not appear well and the victim suggested he talk to someone. The accused later stated that his mother suggesting he needed help triggered him. The accused also advised the police that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs that day.”
Background
A hospital report of January 6, 2025, was filed as exhibit 1 to today’s hearing. It contains information regarding Mr. Teggart’s personal, criminal, and psychiatric background and should be referred to for detail.
Mr. Teggart is now 29 years old. He has no recorded criminal record, although his parents advised that he was charged with stunt driving in 2018 after driving excessively on the Don Valley Parkway. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of speeding under the Highway Traffic Act.
His parents also reported that he was charged with shoplifting in 2020, but these charges were dropped. He also assaulted his father in February of 2020 and threatened him in January 2021. His parents did not press charges against him.
Mr. Teggart was also involved in “kiting” cheques, but the bank involved was persuaded not to charge him. On a few occasions he had also been taken to hospital by the police under a Form 2 of the Mental Health Act.
Mr. Teggart’s parents report that he first showed symptoms of mental illness in 2015 after attending Durham College for two or three months. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2018. He believed he was being controlled by evil forces and that his parents and sister were imposters (Capgras Syndrome).
Mr. Teggart reported first using cannabis when in grade 9. By the time he reached grade 11 he was smoking every other weekend and continued this when he went to college.
Mr. Teggart’s parents confirmed that when he went to college his cannabis use increased and he used it up until the time of the index offence.
By his own report, Mr. Teggart stated he had never tried any other recreational drugs, however, his parents and sister reported otherwise, that he had used other street drugs.
Mr. Teggart reported only drinking alcohol on five or six occasions prior to the index offence.
The hospital report includes details of a psychological risk assessment completed by Dr. Epp in December 2024. Dr. Epp records:
“... Mr. Teggart experienced an unremarkable childhood with no major difficulties in his formative years. In late adolescence, he became increasingly withdrawn and endorsed unusual beliefs about life being a virtual reality, people spying him, and his family being imposters—at the age of 18 he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and was started on anti-psychotic medication. Unfortunately, Mr. Teggart’s resistance to this diagnosis resulted in medication and treatment non-compliance, which was further complicated by cannabis use. This substance use exacerbated his psychotic symptoms (e.g., increased paranoia) and further destabilized him. As time progressed, his parents described angry outbursts in response to minor conflict, and there were numerous contacts with police following verbal and physical disputes in the family home. In addition to physically assaulting his father, Mr. Teggart has used intimidation, brandishing a knife, and uttering threats in response to conflict with his parents. Topics of conflict have varied, but a consistent source of conflict involves financial stress and Mr. Teggart’s repeated requests for money. Per his record, Mr. Teggart has a long-history of difficulty maintaining employment, often as a by-product of mental illness. He has been fired from positions for poor attendance, lack of cooperation, and deteriorating mental status (e.g., paranoia about employers). Although difficulty with employment is not directly related to violence risk, it is moderately relevant in that financial stress stemming from the same has historically resulted in emotion dysregulation and interpersonal conflict.”
Mr. Teggart began clozapine treatment on January 12, 2024, and was weaned off his long-acting injectable Invega. At last year’s annual review, the hospital expected his move from the forensic assessment unit to the secure forensic unit and to gradually introduce his privileges.
Mr. Teggart’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia – Treatment Resistant-active psychosis, Substance Use Disorder Moderate (in early remission).
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Karen De Freitas testified on behalf of the hospital and as Mr. Teggart’s treating psychiatrist. Dr. De Freitas acknowledged an error in the hospital report. The report indicated that Mr. Teggart had maxed out his privileges in the past reporting year, however, he in fact had not used the privilege of escorted community access.
Following Mr. Teggart’s last Board hearing he remained on the forensic assessment unit but was transferred to the medium secure forensic rehabilitation unit (FRU) on February 22, 2024.
Clozapine medication supplemented by olanzapine antipsychotic medication was begun on January 12, 2024, and Mr. Teggart has benefitted as his auditory hallucination symptoms have become less frequent.
Dr. De Freitas testified that in general Mr. Teggart has done quite well in the past reporting year. He is cooperative and he is capable of consenting to his treatment. He is no longer afraid of perceived threats against him. His belief that his parents are not his real parents has diminished to the point that 90 percent of the time he believes his parents are his real parents. Dr. De Freitas points out that this is encouraging on its face, but the last 10 percent will likely be more of a struggle to resolve.
In the past Mr. Teggart has been apprehensive to the point of paranoia about applying for ODSP. However, this year he has applied and now receives financial support from ODSP. Mr. Teggart tends to spend a lot of money and he has now agreed to participate in a financial management group to assist with budgeting.
Mr. Teggart’s insight is still wanting. He understands that he has an illness and that he needs treatment for it, but he is less convinced that this illness is a life-long illness and will require life-long treatment.
A referral has been made for a cognitive assessment; however, the hospital’s resources are stretched in this area and Dr. De Freitas is uncertain how long it will take him to move up the hospital list for this.
Mr. Teggart used to avoid groups and had responded better in 1:1 interactions. This year however, he has done particularly well in groups, although he cannot recall much of the information. It is for this reason that a cognitive assessment is recommended.
Dr. De Freitas explains that technically Mr. Teggart is considered to be treatment resistant, but he is currently responding to clozapine. There is potential to increase that dose somewhat if his improvement slows or stops in the near future.
Given Mr. Teggart’s improvements and stability in the past year, were it not for the high risk accused restrictions, Dr. De Freitas and the hospital team would normally be recommending increased privileges such as indirectly supervised community privileges and a community living privilege. Although he would not likely qualify for community living in this coming reporting year, the hospital would be advocating for this to gain a position on a housing list.
It is likely that a supervised group home would be the placement for him if and when he is ready for this.
Mr. Teggart is aware of and understands the signs of decompensation. However, if his medications stopped this would change. Dr. De Freitas expects that he would deteriorate rapidly if medication stopped.
Dr. De Freitas agrees that Mr. Teggart’s parents would be the most likely vulnerable targets of the risk posed by Mr. Teggart and she confirms that even prior to the index offence there was a history of assaultive and threatening behaviour of his parents.
Although Mr. Teggart has a history of not being forthright with treatment providers about his symptoms, this is now less of a concern since Mr. Teggart has been frank about revealing his ongoing residual symptoms in this past year.
Dr. De Freitas agrees that Mr. Teggart has done all the hospital team has asked of him. He has been compliant with his medications; however, he still has questions about the need to stay on them. Dr. De Freitas expects the biggest change in the coming year will be being able to visit the community escorted and perhaps accompanied by staff, within the qualifications imposed on a high risk accused.
Dr. De Freitas acknowledges that intramuscular medication would be easier to manage but Mr. Teggart is doing well on oral clozapine, and it is certainly possible that in the future, IM medication could be reconsidered.
Mr. Teggart has participated well in programs in the past year. Dr. De Freitas notes that the biggest test will be in the concurrent disorders group in efforts to establish his ability to put the information he has received into practice. In the past Mr. Teggart believed he was completely in a virtual universe. Now he says this belief has diminished by 75 percent.
Mr. Teggart has been communicating by telephone with his parents and these phone calls have gone well. He has access to an iPad, but he has not abused this in any way.
Dr. De Freitas concluded her evidence by indicating that she believes that Mr. Teggart has now internalized much of the awareness of his illness; however, it is uncertain to what degree he has internalized substance use. It is hoped that this will become clearer once he has been engaged in cognitive behavioural therapy and observing his performance when exercising access to the community. To date Mr. Teggart has denied any craving for substances, particularly cannabis.
Submissions
The parties maintained their joint position that Mr. Teggart’s disposition order be maintained with no objection to the 200-metre perimeter restriction.
Mr. Rastgou would also like to see the Ontario Review Board appeal Mr. Teggart’s HRA designation which, if successful, would permit the hospital to add increased privileges to Mr. Teggart’s disposition should the appeal be successful.
Decision
The Review Board accepts the evidence from Dr. De Freitas and as contained in the hospital report which supports that Mr. Teggart is a significant threat to the safety of the public. In particular, the Board notes that although Mr. Teggart’s progress has been positive following the introduction of clozapine, there are still doubts about his insight into his illness and the need for continued medication and he still harbours active symptoms of his illness in the form of auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs involving whether his parents are real and whether he is in fact living in a real world.
The Board has considered Mr. Rastgou’s request for an appeal to review Mr. Teggart’s HRA status. The authority for this lies at s. 672.84(1) of the Criminal Code. This states that at an annual review hearing involving a high risk accused, if the Board “… is satisfied that there is not a substantial likelihood that the accused ... will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person…” it could refer that finding to be reviewed by a Superior Court of criminal jurisdiction.
Based on this Board’s conclusion that Mr. Teggart remains a significant threat to the safety of the public it cannot state that there is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Teggart will not use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person.
Furthermore, Mr. Rastgou advises the Board that there is already an appeal pending to the Court of Appeal of Ontario initiated by Mr. Teggart through other counsel. That appeal has apparently been in the works for about a year. Mr. Rastgou had no indication when it would ultimately be heard.
With the above considerations the Board will not refer Mr. Teggart’s matter to the Superior Court.
The Board agrees with the joint submission including the addition of the 200-meter perimeter restriction. The Board also concludes that the privilege of escorted community passes for recreation and community reintegration purposes is necessary for the accused’s treatment and is consistent with the parameters of s.672.64(3) of the Criminal Code.
The Board also finds that the Disposition as jointly agreed is not the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, although based on the hospital’s evidence today, it is the least onerous and least restrictive within the boundaries set by s. 672.64(3) of the Criminal Code regarding limitations on Mr. Teggart’s privileges.
The hospital agrees that if in the coming reporting year Mr. Teggart’s HRA designation is revoked it can apply to the Review Board for an early review to amend Mr. Teggart’s disposition if appropriate at that time.
DATED this 26th day of February, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. MacIntyre, K.C. Alternate Chairperson