Re: Simon Peachey
ORB File No: 8701
Hearing held on: Friday, January 31, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann
Members: Dr. A.D. Jones
Dr. H. Moulden
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Mr. Simon Peachey
Counsel: Mr. W. Glover
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 5, 2025)
Introduction
On September 4, 2024, the accused, Mr. Simon Peachey, was found unfit to stand trial (“unfit to stand trial”) on Criminal Code (“Code”) charges of failure to comply with probation order (x1); failure to comply with release order (x 3); and failure to comply with SOIRA order (x1).
The Honourable Court did not make a disposition and remitted the matter for a hearing before the Ontario Review Board (the “Board” or “ORB”). Mr. Peachey was returned to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the “hospital”) pending the ORB hearing. Mr. Peachey was initially admitted to the hospital on July 11, 2024, pursuant to a court-issued treatment order.
On January 31, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to conduct a hearing pursuant to sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Code. The issues to be determined by the Board are whether Mr. Peachey is fit to stand trial as of the date of the hearing, and if found to be unfit to stand trial, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Code.
Dr. A. R. Ardani, Mr. Peachey’s attending psychiatrist, testified on behalf of the hospital. Dr. Ardani adopted the contents of the Initial Hospital Report (the “Hospital Report”) dated October 23, 2024 (marked as Exhibit #1), and the Update to the Initial Hospital Report (the “Update”), dated January 20, 2025 (marked as Exhibit #2).
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed with respect to their initial positions. Counsel for the hospital, Ms. Zamprogna, submitted that Mr. Peachey remained unfit to stand trial as of the date of the hearing, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition with privileges including living in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Counsel for the Attorney-General, Mr. Rows, adopted the hospital’s submission.
Counsel for Mr. Peachey, Mr. Glover, indicated that although Mr. Peachey was able to express himself in part, he was concerned that Mr. Peachey could not meaningfully understand the court process or communicate with counsel. Mr. Glover was unable to take a position with respect to the appropriate disposition.
In closing submissions, Counsel for the hospital and the Attorney-General maintained their initial positions. Counsel for Mr. Peachey in his closing submissions agreed that Mr. Peachey could not meaningfully instruct counsel and was not able to understand the court proceedings. With respect to the necessary and appropriate disposition, Mr. Glover urged the Board to consider Mr. Peachey’s risk for violence, given his criminal record.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board found that Mr. Peachey continues to be unfit to stand trial, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition, as recommended by the hospital during the hearing, with privileges which include living in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Alleged Offences
- The alleged offences are set out in the Hospital Report as follows:
Charge 1 - Fail to comply with probation order
The following information was taken from the Charge Sheet from the London Police Service, dated July 5, 2023:
On June 26, 2023, Simon J Peachey appeared in Ontario Court of Justice, London, Ontario before The Honourable Justice C. Sigurdson on the charge of fail to comply with release order x3, contrary to section 145(4) (a), Assault contrary to section s. 266, sexual assault contrary to section 271, fail to comply with undertaking contrary to section. 145 (4) (a), harassment by repeated telecommunication contrary to section 372 (4) of the Criminal Code of Canada. On that date he was adjudged to 18 months probation, in addition to a sentence of imprisonment of 1 day deemed served (PSC of 8 months).
A condition of this Order requires Simon J Peachey to: “Report in person to a probation officer within 3 working days of your release from custody and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in your supervision.”
On July 4, 2023, Geoff Lucas, probation and parole officer, contacted Salvation Army Centre of Hope and Men’s Mission staff who confirmed no individual identified as Simon J. Peachey was at shelter. The subject never reported to the London Core Probation Office to date. Mr. Peachey has no previous however, due to the nature of his present offences, which includes a sexual assault and assault charge, a warrant is respectfully requested.
Charge 2 - Fail to comply with SOIRA order
The following information was taken from the Charge Sheet from the London Police Service, dated April 13, 2024:
On June 26, 2023, the accused in this matter, Simon John PEACHEY (DOB: 1977-Jul-05), was convicted of Sexual Assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada. SMITH was issued a Form 52 "Order to Comply With the Sex Offender Information Registration Act" for a period of 10 years by the Ontario Court of Justice in London, Ontario.
One condition of this order was:
"1. You must report for the first time, in person, to the registration centre referred to in section 7.1 of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act located at 80 Dundas St, London ON that serves the area in which your main residence is located, whenever required under subsection 4(1) of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. You shall report within 7 days after (a) the order is made. (non-custodial sentence for designated offence(s)) Report by 05-Jul-2023"
The accused was not given a custodial sentence.
The accused failed to attend a registration centre before this date for the purposes of his initial registration as required under the order. The accused still had not registered on the date this charge was laid, July 12, 2023. This was in violation of the Order made by the Court.
There is no record on the National Sex Offender Registry to show that the offender registered with a registration centre anywhere in Canada.
The accused's identity was confirmed by his London police record and mugshot as well as his NSOR information.
The accused is charged with one count of Fail to Report As Required by Section 490.012 Order, contrary to section 490.031(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada by way of warrant application.
Charge 3 - Fail to comply with release order
The following information was taken from the Charge Sheet from the London Police Service, dated April 13, 2024:
On December 29, 2023, the accused, Simon Peachey, was released on a Release Order Entered into Before a Judge or Justice of the Peace in relation to the following charges:
Breach of Probation contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code. Fail to Report as Required contrary to section 490.031(1) of the Criminal Code.
A condition of the order reads as follows:
"1. Report to the London Police Service in person located at 601 Dundas Street, London, ON, every Tuesday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and sign in as required commencing January 2, 2024"
On January 2, 2024 at approximately 8:26 p.m. PC Armstrong of the London Police Service checked the Bail Reporting Card in the name of Simon Peachey with a date of birth of 1977 July 05 noting there was no signature of the accused.
PC Armstrong is aware when persons are required to sign in, they sign the Bail Reporting Card in their name. The date and time they signed in is also filled in. The officer present when the accused signed in also writes their badge number on the card.
At approximately 8:26 p.m. PC Armstrong contacted the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre and confirmed the accused was not in provincial custody.
At approximately 8:34 p.m. PC Armstrong contacted Parkwood Hospital who has access to all hospital admissions confirming there was no one by the name of the accused currently admitted to local hospitals.
As such PC Armstrong formed reasonable grounds to believe the accused failed to comply with his release order conditions contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Charge 4 - Fail to comply with release order
The following information was taken from the Charge Sheet from the London Police Service, dated April 13, 2024:
On December 29, 2023 the accused, Simon PEACHEY, was released on a Release Order Entered Into Before a Judge or Justice of the Peace in relation to the following charges:
Breach of Probation contrary to section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code. Fail to Report as Required contrary to section 490.031(1) of the Criminal Code.
The release order was signed by Justice of the Peace Tammy Waugh and included the following condition:
"Report to probation by January 4th 2024 of your release and thereafter as required".
On January 5th 2024 probation officer Simon Protopapas contacted the London Police Service to report that the accused had not shown up for his scheduled meeting as required by his release order. All accused who attend or phone call, are logged on the system and the accused is not registered.
Constable Bouw was detailed to investigate.
Constable Bouw observed that the accused was wanted for failing to attend London Police Headquarters to sign his bail card. On January 2nd 2024 a warrant was applied for by PC Armstrong. Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre, shelters and hospitals were checked on that date with negative results. Probation and Parole was notified of this warrant application as he was scheduled to meet with them on January 4th 2024.
Constable Bouw formed grounds to charge the accused with failing to report to probation.
The accused is currently transient in nature and there are no known addresses to check for the accused. As a result, a warrant has been applied for.
The accused was identified by London Police local mugshot.
As a result of this investigation the accused is charged with one count of failing to comply with release order contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Charge 5 - Fail to comply with release order
The following information was taken from the Charge Sheet from the London Police Service, dated April 13, 2024:
On January 9, 2023 the accused, Simon Peachey, was released on a Release Order Entered Into Before a Judge or Justice of the Peace in relation to he following charges:
Fail to comply; release order CC 145(5)(a)
Fail to comply; release order CC 145(5)(a)
Fail to comply with an order CC 490.031(1)
Fail to comply; probation CC 733.1(1)
A condition of the order reads as follows:
"1. Report to the London Police Services, in person located at 601 Dundas Street, London ON, every Tuesday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and sign in as required commencing January 16, 2024"
On January 23, 2024 at approximately 9:00 p.m. PC Carey of the London Police Service checked the Bail Reporting Card in the name of Simon Peachey with a date of birth of 1977 July 05 noting there was no signature of the accused.
PC Carey is aware when persons are required to sign in, they sign the Bail Reporting Card in their name. The date and time they signed in is also filled in. The officer present when the accused signed in also writes their badge number on the card.
At approximately 9:10 p.m. PC Carey contacted the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre and confirmed the accused was not in provincial custody.
At approximately 9:34 p.m. PC Parkwood contacted Parkwood Hospital who has access to all hospital admissions confirming there was no one by the name of the accused currently admitted to local hospitals.
As such PC Carey formed reasonable grounds to believe the accused failed to comply with his release order conditions contrary to section 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code. As the accused is of no fixed address and transient in nature, a warrant was applied for.
Legal History
- The following information was taken from page 8 of the Hospital Report:
2019-08-02
- Breach
- Possession of a weapon
- Mischief under $5000
Conditional discharge & probation 3 months conc. with sentence serving Conditional discharge & probation 3 months Conditional discharge & probation 3 months conc. with sentence serving
2023-06-26
Fail to comply with release order
Harassing telecommunication
Assault
Fail to comply with release order
Sexual assault
Fail to comply with undertaking
Fail to comply with release order
1 day (time served) & probation 18 months conc. with sentence serving & pre-sentence custody 240 days
1 day (time served) & probation 18 months conc. with sentence serving & pre-sentence custody 240 days
1 day (time served) & probation 18 months conc. with sentence serving discretionary prohibition order for 10 years & pre-sentence custody 240 days
1 day (time served) & probation 18 months conc. with sentence serving & pre-sentence custody 240 days
1 day (time served) & probation 18 months conc. with sentence serving discretionary
The Board noted that it had no information about Mr. Peachey’s criminal history (if any) predating 2019, and no information about the circumstances surrounding the 2023 convictions for harassing telecommunication, assault, and sexual assault.
Counsel for the Attorney-General, Mr. Rows, confirmed that the primary victim of the 2023 convictions was Mr. Peachey’s wife.
Mr. Rows undertook to provide the hospital and the Board with full information about Mr. Peachey’s criminal history.
The Board strongly encourages the Attorney-General to provide this information to the Board and to the hospital as soon as possible.
Current Diagnoses
- Unspecified Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders;
Query Mild Neurocognitive Disorder Due to Huntington’s Disease with Behavioural Disturbance;
Rule Out Cannabis Use Disorder.
Background
Mr. Peachey was born in Manchester, England. He did not have any complications during infancy and reached his developmental milestones at typical ages. Mr. Peachey was the last in a sibline of three with an older half-brother (with the same father) and an older brother. His father was a truck mechanic, and his mother was unemployed. They left England and moved to Canada in 1980 and settled in Hamilton. When he was six, the family moved to London.
According to Mr. Peachey, he completed high school as a “B student”. After high school, at age 18, Mr. Peachey entered a 4-year apprenticeship program through Fanshawe College. He had a stable source of income at that time and left his family home. Additionally, he attended a truck-driving school and received his driving license.
Mr. Peachey started living independently after he left his family home, after high school. He was able to work and was able to secure stable housing for most of his adult life.
Mr. Peachey was diagnosed with Huntington’s Disease (“HD”), likely in 2019. He was seen by a neurologist, Dr. Mark Guttman, at the Centre for Movement Disorders in Toronto. It was reported that he had cognitive deficits and frontal lobe dysfunction as a result.
Mr. Peachey worked as a truck driver until he started to develop symptoms of HD, and as a result, he gave up his driving license. He started to collect pensions from Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP). Subsequently, he stated that he declined all pensions after his family started a “flipping houses” company and became rich.
After he declined to collect his pensions, he lived with no fixed address. He did not live with his parents or siblings and was homeless on the streets in the last few summers, and was living with his friends, or at hotels in the winters.
Mr. Peachey's mother and grandmother had HD. Two of his sons tested positive for HD as well. Mr. Peachey denied any family history of mental illness, substance use disorder, or legal involvement.
Mr. Peachey started his first intimate relationship when he was 18. His first intimate partner was Terra. He lived with her between the ages of 18 and 25. He had two sons with Terra. According to Mr. Peachey, Terra had a dependence on prescription opioids (oxycodone) which was the reason for their separation. Their sons continued to live with him. Terra passed away due to her opioid use disorder in 2016. After Terra, he entered a new relationship with another intimate partner, Kim. Kim broke up with him after two years and left him. He was a single father for approximately 7 years until he entered a relationship with Kelly. They lived with each other for 13 years. Mr. Peachey’s children from his first relationship continued to live with him and Kelly. He had a son and a daughter from his relationship with Kelly. Around 2020, Kelly moved out with his four children. He was not aware why Kelly moved out but stated “perhaps she didn’t care for me.”
Mr. Peachey was admitted to psychiatry and remained in the hospital for a day in March 2018. His admission was after he attempted suicide by "driving his car into a pole following an argument with his partner.” It was noted that his vehicle was damaged, but he was not injured. It was documented that CAS was involved in that time as his children witnessed him putting "his hands around his partner’s neck." He was discharged to the care of his partner with the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood. Citalopram was prescribed for him.
Mr. Peachey had an urgent psychiatry appointment in 2019. It was reported that he showed some cognitive decline according to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test. He scored 26 out of 30 on MMSE. His medications (antidepressants) were optimized.
Mr. Peachey made an appointment with his family doctor to discuss MAiD in the summer of 2020. However, he cancelled the appointment after his ex-partner "stated that she would treat him better and that he did not need to go through with it." It was noted that his ex-partner left him two months later.
Mr. Peachey was admitted to Victoria Hospital in London, Ontario, on February 8, 2021, on a Form 1 and remained in the hospital until February 16, 2021, on a Form 3. His admission was subsequent to a suicidal attempt. His ex-partner had taken their children from his home, and his adult son left him to live with Mr. Peachey’s ex-partner and their children. Mr. Peachey started drinking alcohol and injected insulin (belonging to his ex-partner) in a suicide attempt.
It was noted that prior to his admission, he was on two antidepressant medications, to which he was adherent. His medications continued in the hospital and a referral was made to social work. Throughout his stay, he did not present with any psychotic presentations, and he was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with depressed mood. He was discharged with the plan to return to the hospital if he experienced suicidal thoughts. His medications did not change.
Mr. Peachey began drinking alcohol at the age of 16. According to Mr. Peachey he stopped heavy drinking after the age of 25, drinking only socially a few times a year.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Peachey stated that he started to use cannabis around the age of 16. He had been using cannabis for years, usually 2-3 joints a day. He denied he had a cannabis addiction and said that his family doctor had prescribed cannabis preparation for the treatment of Huntington's disease (HD). He said that he last used cannabis prior to his arrest. He said that he would continue smoking cannabis after his discharge.
Mr. Peachey started smoking cigarettes when he was 16 and he would usually smoke one pack of cigarettes every day. During his stay at the hospital, he denied any craving for cigarettes but stated he would start smoking after his discharge.
Mr. Peachey was seen by a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) for Swallowing and communication assessment at the hospital. The results of the assessment were unremarkable, and a re-assessment was recommended due to the progressive nature of HD.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Ardani testified that Mr. Peachey continued to exhibit positive symptoms of psychosis, particularly disorganized thinking, delusions, and auditory hallucinations. The doctor opined that it was likely that all of these were caused by HD, but that the team would continue to observe Mr. Peachey to obtain further diagnostic clarification.
For example, the doctor indicated that it was difficult to distinguish whether Mr. Peachey’s actions were a response to auditory hallucinations, or involuntary movements resulting from HD. At this point, the doctor believed they were more consistent with speech and were not involuntary movements.
With respect to substance use, particularly cannabis, Dr. Ardani testified that substance use disorder remained a “rule out” diagnoses. The doctor was unable to indicate whether cannabis use was a factor in the alleged offences, because Mr. Peachey is so severely impacted by HD, cannabis use would not be a cause of psychosis but would likely further impair Mr. Peachey’s disorganized thinking.
Mr. Peachey’s medications are currently being optimized. He has started on clozapine, and quetiapine is being decreased. The goal is to reduce the quetiapine and increase the clozapine. There has been no improvement in symptoms yet, and Dr. Ardani did not expect to see any improvements for an additional 8 weeks.
Mr. Peachey is compliant with his medications, which are administered with the supervision of the hospital staff. Dr. Ardani stated that Mr. Peachey would not be able to comply with his medications without the supervision and support of the hospital staff, due to his level of disorganization, and his complete lack of insight into the need for medications.
Mr. Peachey has no insight into his psychotic disorder, his need for treatment, his risk of violence, or the impact substance use could have on his functioning.
Mr. Peachey participated in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) on October 23, 2024, to screen for cognitive deficits and/or relative strengths. He demonstrated an overall score of 12/30 which is in the range of moderate cognitive impairments as per test administration interpretation guidelines. Dr. Ardani stated that pending further diagnostic clarification, the diagnosis of mild cognitive disorder versus major neurocognitive disorder was retained. He recommended re-testing in the future to assess for further cognitive changes.
The doctor testified that Mr. Peachey is severely affected by his delusions. For example, he does not believe he has a criminal record, or that he has a history of violence. As a result, he believes that there is no reason for him to be in the hospital.
Dr. Ardani also described a delusion that Mr. Peachey believes that the reason he was arrested was for a loitering charge, and that he was not loitering in Tim Horton’s but was a legitimate customer in that restaurant. He believes that the police arrested him so that they could get him out of the way while they infiltrated his multi-million-dollar mansion where his family lives. He believes he can return to live in that mansion once he is discharged from the hospital.
Dr. Ardani told the Board that Mr. Peachey had told him that he believes that 70% of his wages go to the government so he has the right to fire the crown and the judge (and that he has already done so).
Mr. Peachey is currently in a rehabilitation unit rather than a treatment unit, which would be the normal progression. Dr. Ardani told the Board that Mr. Peachey had been placed in the rehabilitation unit for two reasons. First, because there is no realistic treatment available for HD. Second, because Mr. Peachey is vulnerable, and the hospital wishes to protect him from the (generally) more violent patients in the treatment unit.
Dr. Ardani indicated that he had assessed Mr. Peachey’s fitness to stand trial on the day prior to the hearing. During that assessment, Mr. Peachey was able to describe the roles of the judge, the crown, and the defence counsel. He was able to describe the plea options and possible outcomes. He understood the consequences of lying under oath. He was able to indicate that he was not satisfied with the counsel who had represented him in court, because in Mr. Peachey’s opinion he is fit to stand trial just like his mother, who also has HD.
It was Dr. Ardani’s opinion that while Mr. Peachey had objective concrete knowledge of the basic structure of the court processes, he was unable to apply them to himself; he did not have a reality-based understanding of the legal proceedings; he would not be able to have rational communication with his counsel; and he would not be able to participate meaningfully in the court process. As a result, Mr. Peachey is not fit to stand trial.
Dr. Ardani acknowledged that fitness can fluctuate, but that given the irreversible nature of HD, and the progressively negative trajectory of the disease, it was likely to have a negative impact on the possibility that Mr. Peachey would become fit to stand trial.
Dr. Ardani indicated that a detention order was necessary and appropriate to mitigate the risk of violence to the public because Mr. Peachey is unable to organize or manage his medications, supports, or housing without supervision. Despite his delusional beliefs that he has a family mansion; Mr. Peachey has no fixed address. He has no community supports and lacks insight across all spheres.
A community living clause is appropriate and least restrictive. Dr. Ardani testified that the most likely accommodation suitable for Mr. Peachey is a locked area in a long-term care facility. This setting would provide the supports required by Mr. Peachey for medication supervision, meals, health care, accommodation, housekeeping, recreation etc. as the HD progresses.
Dr. Ardani indicated that once a detention disposition with a community living clause has been issued, the hospital will be able to place Mr. Peachey on appropriate waitlists. He indicated that the choice of waitlists will not depend on how Mr. Peachey responds to the optimization of medications, given the progressive nature of HD.
In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Ardani asked the Board to remove “and grounds” from clause 2(b) of the recommended disposition. Dr. Ardani expressed concern that indirectly supervised access to the grounds of the hospital, which is situated close to a busy road and is not fenced, could be a safety hazard for Mr. Peachey, and for the public, as Mr. Peachey could wander away from the grounds under the influence of his delusions, and given his low level of cognitive function.
Dr. Ardani indicated that at the time the hospital recommendations were prepared, the team had been more optimistic that clozapine would have helped to decrease the delusions and increase Mr. Peachey’s cognitive functioning, but this medication has not yet been optimized.
Analysis and Conclusion
The test for fitness to stand trial, as set out in R. v. Taylor is one of limited cognitive capacity. This means the person charged must be able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings, the possible consequences, and can recount to counsel facts necessary to allow counsel to properly prepare a defence. This last point has been elaborated upon by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Morrissey, 2007 ONCA 770, at para. 29, wherein Blair J.A. stated “The ability to communicate with counsel in the context of a fitness inquiry speaks to the ability to seek and receive legal advice.” At para. 36 the Court stated: “An accused must be mentally fit to stand trial in order to ensure that the trial meets minimum standards of fairness and accords with principles of fundamental justice such as the right to be present at one's own trial and the right to make full answer and defence... Meaningful presence and meaningful participation at the trial, therefore, are the touchstones of the inquiry into fitness.”
The Court of Appeal addressed the fitness tests most recently in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203. The court rejected the use of the phrase “limited cognitive capacity”, directing that it should simply be the “fitness test. The five-member Court emphasized the need for meaningful participation in proceedings to be fit for trial.
At para. 167 of the judgement the Court stated:
There is one fitness test for all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. This test is applied contextually.
The test for fitness is set out in the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.
A person is unfit to stand trial if, on account of mental disorder, the person is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so.
The purpose of the s. 2 fitness test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial. These touchstones inform a purposive interpretation and application of the s. 2 fitness test and do not themselves constitute a stand-alone test.
The Taylor test questions are not a sufficient surrogate for assessing fitness but are helpful in providing insights into an accused’s abilities in relation to the s. 2 criteria. Applying the fitness test is more nuanced than the questions recognize.
The accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings.
The accused must have the ability to make decisions. This involves the ability to understand available options, the ability to select from those options, the ability to understand the basic consequences arising from those options, and the ability to intelligibly communicate to either counsel or the court the decision arrived upon.
The accused need not have the capacity to engage in analytic thinking in the sense that the accused need not be capable of making decisions in their own best interests.
There was ample evidence before the Board that Mr. Peachey, although able to identify the basic functions of the court process and the main roles of those in the court, does not have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings, and would not meaningfully be able to instruct counsel or participate in the trial.
The Update on pages 1-2 contains the following observations of Mr. Peachey’s presentation in January of 2025:
In early January 2025, Mr. Peachey was reported to be seclusive and withdrawn, not leaving his room, and not engaging in activities he usually enjoyed i.e. listening to music. On January 9, 2025, he was assessed by Dr. Ardani. On approach, he was in his room and was observed to have complex movements in his mouth and lips, which was very similar to actively responding to unseen stimuli, and not just involuntary jaw movements due to HD. In discussion, he denied any depression or abnormal feelings but gradually started to become irritable during the interaction. He said he did not expect to remain in custody (in hospital) for these many months for the charge of loitering. He stated he missed his family, and he believed restricting his freedom was illegal. Mr. Peachey maintained the belief that he was not loitering and that he had the right to go to Tim Horton's as a customer and did not expect to be arrested. He endorsed grandiose thoughts (all people would like to be in his position), hypersexuality (had multiple different partners waiting to have relationships with him), and paranoia (police continue to try to infiltrate his mansion). During this conversation, he presented with memory problems (was not able to recall how many months he had remained in custody and inability to recall the reason for his arrest), disorganized thought process (multiple perseverations, for example repeating a sentence up to four times before being able to continue expressing other ideas), paranoid and grandiose thinking, impulsivity (interrupted the interviewer multiple times and was not able to let the interviewer complete their sentences, gradually becoming irritable and pressured in speech with a loud voice and threatening non-verbal behaviours, for example, hand gestures), and inflexible pattern of thinking (was not able to consider ideas other than his).
Mr. Peachey has continued to suffer from the same delusional thinking which has been present since his admission to the Southwest Centre in early July 2024. His thought disorganization and impulsivity could be attributed to frontal lobe dysfunction, as it was suggested in the past (in the early days of presenting with neurologic symptoms of HD).
The Board observed some of Mr. Peachey’s thought disorganization, impulsivity, and delusions during the hearing.
Mr. Peachey frequently interrupted Dr. Ardani’s testimony with statements such as the following, which he would repeat several times: “I wasn’t loitering I was a paying customer.”; “I shouldn’t be here.”; “I don’t have a criminal record – he is lying.”; “70% of my wages go to employees – you all make a mint”; “He is lying – he has been to my home to check it out.”; “…my plan for the greater good – saves so many lives – cancer, HD…”.
While sensitive to Mr. Peachey’s experience that breach of a court order does not usually result in jail time, the Board noted that Mr. Peachey has a delusional understanding of the alleged offences. He believes that he is in jail (not in a hospital) because he was arrested for loitering at a Tim Horton’s restaurant, and that this arrest was motivated by police desire to infiltrate his mansion.
Mr. Peachey does not have a reality-based understanding of his legal situation, which flows from his delusions, which in turn likely flow from HD.
His counsel, Mr. Glover, confirmed that in his experience, while Mr. Peachey can instruct counsel in part, Mr. Peachey cannot participate meaningfully in court proceedings.
Applying the test set out in Bharwani, nothing in the evidence before this Board allows us to conclude on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Peachey meets the test for fitness. The Board believes Mr. Peachey would not be meaningfully present and would not be able to meaningfully participate and instruct counsel in a criminal proceeding. In conclusion, the Board finds that Mr. Peachey remains unfit to stand trial.
The Board agrees that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with community living in approved accommodation, as proposed by Dr. Ardani during the hearing.
The alleged offences are not violent in nature, but flow (at least in part) from convictions in 2023 for harassing telecommunication, assault, and sexual assault. The Board notes that Mr. Peachey served 240 days in pre-sentence custody. As pointed out by Mr. Glover, pre-sentence custody can be indicative of convictions for offences which involve violence.
In addition, there is some indication of violence in the Hospital Report at page 9 that “It was documented that CAS was involved in that time as his children witnessed him putting "his hands around his partner’s neck.".”
Mr. Rows confirmed that the 2023 convictions involved “Mr. Peachey’s wife”.
The Board also noted that Mr. Peachey may have been involved with substance use prior to his arrest. The Update notes at page 3 that when “Mr. Peachey’s belongings were received from the jail and upon inspecting them, a large quantity of drugs and drug paraphernalia was found, which was reported to security who took it and disposed of it.”
Despite Mr. Peachey’s belief that he owns a mansion the hospital could find no evidence of an address or home for Mr. Peachey to return to. Mr. Peachey has no community supports; does not believe he needs medications. Mr. Peachey would not be capable of organizing his medications or his community supports even if he believed he needed them because of the impact of HD on his cognitive functioning.
The hospital requires the ability to approve Mr. Peachey’s accommodations, given his complex physical and psychiatric needs, and given the nature of the potentially violent/psychologically damaging actions which led to the 2023 criminal convictions.
The Board relies on the Reoffence Scenario set out at page 25 of the Hospital Report:
Absent the current level of supervision of the forensic system, Mr. Peachey will not likely be able to secure stable housing. Due to his cognitive decline and underdeveloped insight, he will not likely be able to identify the level of support he requires to reside safely in the community. He will not likely be able to organize a follow-up plan with a community physician or to remain adherent to his current prescription. Mr. Peachey’s HD has impacted his cognition and his self-control, resulting in frustration intolerance, irritability, disinhibition, and impulsivity. His understanding about the circumstances in his environment has been distorted due to psychotic presentations, including paranoia and grandiosity. Absent medications and the current level of forensic oversight, he would likely identify stimuli in his environment as distressing or threatening and would act out violently or recklessly similar to the time he resided with his family.
- The Board also relies on the overall clinical assessment of risk set out at page 26 of the Hospital Report:
It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Peachey poses a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:
Mr. Peachey has a serious and persistent mental illness. He continues to present with active symptoms of his illness, including inflexible thinking, delusions and likely auditory hallucinations. His medication and treatment have not been optimized. His symptoms were likely present at the time of the alleged index offences and are connected to his ongoing violence risk;
Mr. Peachey suffers from HD and the associated cognitive impairments. He has acted recklessly and aggressively after progression of his degenerative neurologic condition. Unfortunately, no treatment is available to prevent the progression of this disease;
Mr. Peachey has no insight into his index offence, his mental illness, his need for treatment or his violence risk;
Although he has remained adherent to his medications in the highly supervised hospital setting, Mr. Peachey would not be able to independently administer them, which would subsequently result in decompensation of his mental state. He will require close monitoring and supervision to take his medications as prescribed;
Mr. Peachey has a history of substance use (cannabis) and was using cannabis prior to the index offence. He continues to voice a desire to use cannabis once discharged and remains at a high risk for relapse;
Mr. Peachey’s active psychosis and cognitive decline from his Huntington’s disease are barriers to him engaging in psychotherapeutic programming to address his risk factors; and,
Mr. Peachey has no stable living situation, personal supports or community professional mental health supports outside of the forensic system.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Peachey, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Disposition with the clauses described earlier in these Reasons.
The Board urges the Attorney General to provide complete information about Mr. Peachey’s criminal record to the hospital and the Board as soon as possible.
DATED this 5^th^ day of March 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Legal Member
_____________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board