Ontario Review Board
Re: Brock K. Brown
ORB File No: 7074
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(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: Brock K. Brown 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 12, 2025)
Introduction
On December 21, 2016, the accused, Brock Brown, was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”) charges of sexual assault x 2, criminal harassment x 2, failure to comply with probation order x 2, utter threat to cause death or bodily harm, and assault, in connection with a series of events occurring between June 13, 2016 and June 14, 2016.
Mr. Brown is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) dated February 6, 2024, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including community living in Elgin or Middlesex County in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On January 29, 2024, the Board convened a hearing at the Hospital pursuant to s. 672.48(1) and s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Brown was present for the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. W. Glover. Mr. Brown’s aunt, Ms. Leblanc, and Mr. Brown’s grandparents attended the hearing to support Mr. Brown.
The issues to determine at the hearing were whether Mr. Brown is unfit to stand trial and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year based on a consideration of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions. The Hospital submitted that Mr. Brown remains unfit to stand trial and is a significant threat to the safety of the public. As such, Mr. Brown should be subject to a detention order disposition without change. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the position of the Hospital. Mr. Glover, for Mr. Brown, submitted that Mr. Brown remained unfit to stand trial on the basis that he is unable to meaningfully communicate with counsel, but that he was otherwise unable to take a position on the appropriateness of the proposed disposition. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties confirmed their original recommendations, save for a reduction in Mr. Brown’s reporting requirements, upon which they all agreed.
For reasons that follow, the Board found that Mr. Brown remains unfit to stand trial, likely permanently so, and he is a significant threat to the safety of the public. The necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with a reduction in the reporting requirement to not less than two times per month.
Index Offences (Alleged)
- The circumstances of the alleged index offences are excerpted from last year’s Board Reasons:
“Sexual Assault Sec. 271 CCC (Charge 1)
The accused Brock Brown (25 years) and the victim, Lauren Squires (24 years) are not previously known to each other. Squires is employed at the Canadian Tire located at 378 Norton Street East, in the City of London, and Brown attended as a customer.
The Canadian Tire Store has video cameras throughout the store, including one at the store entrance and two covering the area of the cashier. All times are based on the time stamp on the video obtained from the Canadian Tire.
On June 13 2016 at 5:59 pm Brown enters the Canadian Tire with an adult male associate. At 6:09 pm Brown is standing at the cashier area with a bike lock and is seen speaking with the cashier, Squires. Over the next 10 minutes Brown is seen hugging, kissing, grabbing, pulling, holding the hands, wrists, hips and shoulders of the victim, Squires, who became too fearful of Brown’s aggressive behaviour to tell him to stop. At one point Brown opened a gate to enter the cash area to continue to make physical contact with Squires. Squires is seen attempting to distance herself, pull away and push Brown away. During this interaction Brown made several statements, including: he wanted to marry Squires, stating Squires was pretty, he would beat up Squires’ boyfriend, he just got out of jail, he was a mixed martial arts fighter, and that his name was Brock Brown.
Squires was not physically injured as a result of this incident.
Uttering Threats, Sec. 264.1(1)(a)
The accused Brock Brown (25 years) and the victim, Lauren Squires (24 years) were strangers until Brown was charged with sexually assaulting Squires at her place of work, Canadian Tire.
Scott Ashley is a Court Security officer (CSO) at the London courthouse. Brock Reynolds is a Cadet employed by the London Police Service currently working in the cells of the London courthouse.
On June 16, 2016, at approximately 11:20 am Brown was in custody at the London Courthouse located at 80 Dundas Street, in the City of London. CSO Ashley advised Brown of the new sexual assault charge, as noted above, and he stated ‘Once I get out, she’s getting it. I’m punching her face in.” Cadet Reynolds then heard Brown state, “When I get out of this fucking place I am going to Canadian Tire and am going to punch Lauren Squires face in.”
Harassment, Sec. 264(3) (Count 1) and Assault, Sec. 266
The accused, Brock Kyle Anthony BROWN, age 25 years, and the victim, Jessica GREIG, age 26 years, are not known to one another. GREIG is employed by a social agency who supports people in the community and at the time of the incident, was the Men’s Mission to assist an unrelated person. The accused was residing at the Men’s Mission.
On June 13, 2016 at approximately 8:45 pm, GREIG was at the Men’s Mission at 459 York Street, in the City of London, Ontario. GREIG was approached by the accused and asked if she worked at the men’s mission to which GREIG stated she did not but with another social agency. The accused reached his hand out and GREIG shook his hand. The handshake lingered and GREIG pull her hand away.
The accused identified himself as “Brock” and asked GREIG for a hug to which she declined as it would be inappropriate. The accused then positioned himself between GREIG and her vehicle that she was attempting to enter. The accused opened his arms as if to hug GREIG and as she attempted to walk past, the accused grabbed her elbows.
GREIG immediately removed the accused’s hands from her elbows and stated she had a ‘personal bubble” of space that he needed to respect. GREIG again attempted to walk past the accused and in doing so, the accused stated he wanted her to be his girlfriend. GREIG stated she had professional boundaries and his comment was inappropriate. The accused again grabbed GREIG’s elbows and she again removed his hands and stepped back to create distance.
GREIG attempted to walk toward her vehicle and once she was able to reach it, the accused stood in front of the door and prevented her from entering the vehicle. GREIG asked the accused to move away from the door and the accused stated, “just looking at your face is getting me hard”. The accused then attempted to touch GREIG on the cheek with his finger on his left hand. GREIG attempted to move away so quickly that she nearly fell over.
The accused eventually walked away and GREIG was able to enter the vehicle and leave the area.
Harassment, Sec. 264(3) (Charge 2) & Sexual Assault, Sec. 271 (Charge 2)
The accused, Brock Kyle Anthony BROWN, age 25 years, and the victim, Marta WOSKO, age 22 years, are strangers.
On June 13, 2016 at approximately 6:30 pm, WOSKO was leaving her place of employment in the area of King Street and Wellington Street in the City of London, Ontario when she was approached by the accused. The accused stated, “I need a minute of your time. I need to talk to you because you are so beautiful”. The accused introduced himself with a first and last name, but WOSKO could only recall the first name, “Brock”. WOSKO attempted to walk away but the accused followed her.
WOSKO walked to her vehicle that was parked a large city block away and told the accused she needed to get to her car. The accused followed her and made numerous inappropriate comments such as, asking if her boyfriend ‘licked her pussy” that he was the, “pussy king”, he had slept with about 120 girls, he likely had AIDS, and he wanted to marry WOSKO. The accused asked WOSKO for a hug and she again stated she needed to go home and continued to walk toward her vehicle. WOSKO arrived at her vehicle and the accused blocked her from entering. The accused then hugged and kissed WOSKO on the cheek, touched and grabbed WOSKO, and remained in her personal space for an extended period of time. Eventually WOSKO was able to get into her vehicle, lock the door, and eventually convince the accused to move out of the way so she could drive away. The accused’s behaviour caused WOSKO to be very fearful for her personal safety.
Breach of Probation, Sec. 733.1(1) (Charge 1)
The accused, Brock Kyle BROWN, was convicted in the Ontario Court of Justice of the criminal offence of utter threat to cause death contrary to Section 264.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and assault contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code of Canada and was sentenced in font of W. Rabley, Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.
As part of the sentence the accused was placed on a period of probation from June 19, 2015 for a period of 2 years.
One of the conditions of this probation order was (5) obey a curfew as set by your probation officer.
On August 10, 2015, Probation and parole officer, Darlene Morin specified a curfew to be in residence between 10:30 pm and 6:30 am.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 3:18 am the accused was in the lobby of the Delta London Armouries Hotel located at 325 Dundas Street, in the City of London. The accused was disturbing guests of the hotel. He provided his name as Brock Brown and advised that he was going to sleep at the Macs.
This was in direct violation of the conditions of probation imposed on the accused. As a result the London Police Service was contacted.
Breach of Probation, Sec. 733.1(1) (Charge 2)
Did while bound by a Probation Order made by the Honourable Mr. Justice A. Maclure at the Ontario Court of Justice, London, Ontario on October 287, 2015, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with such order, to wit:
“(r) 4. Reside at an address approved/directed by your p.o.”, contrary to Section 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada."
Background
The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Brown's personal and mental health history, details of the alleged index offences, and his course following his admission to Hospital. Given that the Hospital Report dated January 3, 2025, was made an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce in detail the information contained within it in these Reasons.
Of note, however, is Mr. Brown's diagnosis of Major Neurocognitive Disorder, secondary to Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD), which is an inherited neurodegenerative disorder resulting in progressive cognitive and physical deterioration and is palliative. It carries with it symptoms of impulsivity, aggression and disinhibition (including sexual disinhibition and behaviours). Mr. Brown is now 33 years of age.
From the Hospital Report, Mr. Brown's year in review has been characterized by a continued gradual decline in his motor functioning, challenges in managing his intensifying physical needs safely within the forensic hospital environment and legal disputes regarding who should serve as his substitute decision maker. The legal disputes have delayed the process of the Hospital applying and transferring Mr. Brown to a long-term care (LTC) environment, where it is felt his needs would be better met.
It remained difficult to have meaningful conversation with Mr. Brown as he was often inappropriate when discussing sensitive topics. Similar to the most recent reporting year, his spontaneous speech content during conversation remained impoverished, and his thought processes disorganized. He continued to exhibit bizarre behaviours, such as often putting non-food items in his mouth and chewing them. He was often observed by clinical staff to be in a state of psychomotor agitation, wherein he constantly moved his wheelchair back and forth. He continued to act impulsively by way of verbal outbursts, sexually abusive comments, sexual touching of staff and, most recently, punching staff when they were providing care. He presents with a childlike demeanor, was easily excitable and presented as loud and disruptive, particularly in group settings. Treatment team members have not observed any evidence of mania, depression, anger or anxiety. He has not displayed any self-destructive behaviour. His mood is usually congruent to the situation, except when speaking with his doctor or discussing the alleged index offences. His attitude and behaviours remained immature and challenging.
Mr. Brown depends on nursing staff for all of his daily grooming and hygiene needs and is wheelchair bound. His overall decline in mobility and strength requires specialized equipment to meet his needs. For example, he now needs a ceiling lift for all transfers to/from his bed to his wheelchair and back. He continues to require two staff for all personal care and transfers. At times, he is uncooperative and resistive to personal care, particularly when he does not have consistency in his assigned staff. He does not have the ability to use adaptive coping strategies and cannot appropriately verbalize pain or distress.
Cognitively, he is oriented to person only. His ability to read remains intact but staff have been unable to assess his comprehension. He can however understand movie content and laughs appropriately in response to funny parts. His long-term memory remains good, despite a tendency to change details of memories; however, his short-term memory remains poor. During staff-supported outings, Mr. Brown has presented as highly motivated, polite and interested.
Mr. Brown has no insight into his alleged offences, illness or need for medication. Mr. Brown continues to work extensively with occupational therapy related to his multiple physical health needs including safe transfer status, safe bathing status, wheelchair seating and mobility, support in specialized wheelchair seating and pressure management in bed. His decreased mobility, strength and formerly ill-fitting wheelchair contributed to his increased risk for falls and pressure sores. He received his custom wheelchair on October 1, 2024. This has resulted in an increase in his ability to tolerate sitting up in his wheelchair for longer periods of time and there have been no further incidents of falling and the pressure injuries have resolved. Mr. Brown continues to be followed by an endocrinologist with respect to his ALD.
Socially, Mr. Brown likes to be in the company of others and interacts with people in a limited fashion, typically laughing and joking with peers and staff. He enjoys going on day trips and watching television, He is unable to participate in structured rehabilitation or treatment programs, due to the likelihood he would be disruptive in a group setting. He sleeps well, his appetite is good and his weight has remained stable. However, staff have observed a continued slow decline in his overall energy levels.
As noted above, there has been significant tension between Mr. Brown’s (previous) substitute decision maker, his aunt Michelle LeBlanc, and the treatment team. Ms. LeBlanc remained adamant that she did not want Mr. Brown to go to long-term care. This has been a long-standing issue, due to her belief that Mr. Brown is well-cared in the forensic setting of the Hospital, notwithstanding considerable evidence that this is not the appropriate setting for his optimal care. The dispute between Ms. LeBlanc and the Hospital has delayed Mr. Brown’s transfer to approved accommodation in the community and contributed to continued risk to himself and staff due to the lack of specialized resources for persons living with Mr. Brown’s condition.
After learning that Ms. LeBlanc’s Power of Attorney documents for finances and personal care were not valid (they were not properly witnessed since she signed as her own witness), the treatment team decided to explore appointing a new SDM. Initially, Ms. LeBlanc was not co-operative with this process, reiterating that she did not want Mr. Brown to go to long-term care.
A meeting was held on April 5, 2024, involving Ms. LeBlanc, members of Mr. Brown's treatment team, representatives from Home and Community Care Support Services (HCCSS) and Mr. Brown's lawyer, William Glover. At this meeting, it was determined that Ms. LeBlanc would be appointed as SDM for the areas of finances, treatment and placement. HCCSS confirmed this as well. Although Ms. LeBlanc maintained her opposition to Mr. Brown transferring to long-term care, the treatment team asserted that LTC was the clinically appropriate placement for him, as confirmed by HCCSS.
Following this meeting, Ms. LeBlanc agreed to co-operate with the application for long-term care homes and with her consent, applications were made to a number of LTC homes but she has since reverted to her earlier position that she does not want Mr. Brown to go to LTC. Ms. LeBlanc's consent was withdrawn despite her receiving education on ongoing safety issues present for Mr. Brown at the Southwest Centre and the appropriateness of LTC for meeting his needs.
On August 16, 2024, the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) held a hearing to consider appointing a representative to make treatment decisions on behalf of Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown’s brothers, Trent and Royce Brown, had initiated the hearing, with the goal of becoming joint substitute decision makers for their brother. The CCB appointed Trent and Royce Brown, together or separately, as Mr. Brown’s SDM for the purpose of consenting or refusing “treatment of any kind, whenever a health practitioner proposing a treatment finds that the person is incapable with respect to it”; the decision also found Mr. Brown incapable of consenting to admission to a care facility.
Following the CCB hearing, Ms. LeBlanc appealed regarding the Power of Attorney documents that HCCSS had previously found to be invalid. An initial hearing was held on November 15, 2024, with another held November 29, 2024, wherein procedural issues were discussed but no decisions have yet been made.
However, on October 10, 2024, HCCSS advised of having received direction from senior leadership to suspend Mr. Brown's LTC application process, due to Ms. LeBlanc's appeal. Consequently, HCCSS is unable to proceed but Mr. Brown’s existing file will be left open in case the controversy over the appointment of an SDM is resolved.
Currently, Ms. LeBlanc is Mr. Brown's trustee for finances. His brothers, Royce and Trent Brown, are the substitute decision makers for a placement, treatment and disclosure of personal health information. While family dynamics have posed challenges to placing Mr. Brown in an appropriate LGC environment, his day-to-day care is not directly impacted.
Going forward, the treatment team will continue to support Mr. Brown's quality of life through ongoing recreational engagement and supportive care. LTC and other placement and/or service options, external to the Hospital setting, will continue to be discussed.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Brown continues to be unfit to stand trial. The opinion that Mr. Brown remains unfit to stand trial has not changed since his initial finding of unfit to stand trial and is unlikely to change. There are no signs or symptoms indicative of serious mental illness impacting on Mr. Brown's fitness to stand trial, and no evidence that psychoactive medication, rehabilitative initiatives or fitness education could improve his fitness in any measurable way.
Mr. Brown genuinely appreciates visits from all of this family members and is observed to be animated, smiling and laughing during all of his visits.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it information contained in the hearing documents consisting of the Disposition dated February 6, 2024, the Hospital Report dated January 3, 2025, as well as the oral evidence of Mr. Brown’s psychiatrist, Dr. J. Quinn.
Dr. Quinn adopted the Hospital Report as his evidence and then provided an overview of Mr. Brown’s fitness to stand trial and progress over the period in review, summarized as follows:
a. Mr. Brown remains unfit to stand trial. His neurocognitive condition drives his unfitness. He is not able to understand the court process. Although he can communicate in a limited fashion to express his basic wishes or needs, he is not able to meaningfully communicate with nor instruct counsel; neither would he be able to tolerate the courtroom setting;
b. Mr. Brown’s physical condition has declined gradually except in the last month or so, where clinicians have observed a more marked decline. He is quite bed-bound and more easily fatigued than in the past but continues to demonstrate psychomotor agitation. His overall condition fluctuates slightly from day to day, with some days being better than others but his trajectory is trending towards decline. Robust improvement is not expected;
c. Mr. Brown’s mental status remains much the same as in previous years. He is not on any antipsychotic medication with the exception of 1mg per day of risperidone. He takes 300mg three times per day of gabapentin for pain;
d. He tends to make inappropriate, idiosyncratic remarks, which could be psychologically harmful to others in the right context and often parrots the statements of others. Mr. Brown strikes out at staff during caregiving. However, these behaviours are no different than those commonly presented by other people residing in the LTC system;
e. The issue of who should be Mr. Brown’s SDM for treatment and admission to care facilities is as yet unresolved. Mr. Brown remains globally incapable of consenting to treatment. His last capable wish regarding where he would like to live in the future was in LTC. He toured a number of homes and selected the ones in which he would like to be placed but is now assessed as being no longer capable to make such decisions;
f. Currently, Mr. Brown resides on a rehabilitation unit as opposed to a treatment unit but neither is really appropriate for his needs. He has limited privileges and requires staff to be with him at all times and he does go off the unit daily;
g. The main challenges to Mr. Brown’s optimal management continue to be the amount of support and specialized equipment that he needs to meet his needs, including safe transfers to and from his wheelchair, and the difficulty of engaging him in social and recreational activities. Mr. Brown requires a lot of support to stop him from falling out of bed, as the bed on the unit is not the same type of bed as in LTC. Also, it has become more difficult for him to participate in supported outings to go to a movie or the beach because of the Hospital’s lack of ready access to specialized transportation.
h. Dr. Quinn continues to be of the opinion that Mr. Brown is better placed in the LTC system. Dr. Quinn feels that the LTC system can manage his behaviours and provide him with more and better social and recreational opportunities than the forensic system, which is not intended to meet the needs of persons such as Mr. Brown;
i. Mr. Brown’s application to LTC remains on hold pending the outcome of legal proceedings to determine his SDM;
j. Because Mr. Brown requires a significant amount of support, it remains important for the Hospital to have the ability to approve whatever kind of housing he may need in the future;
k. Dr. Quinn relied on the analysis of significant threat set out a pp 79-80 of the Hospital Report; and
l. Mr. Brown continues to have the support of family members including Ms. LeBlanc and his brothers. They visit him regularly and he thoroughly enjoys seeing and spending time with them.
Counsel for the Attorney General had no questions of Dr. Quinn. In response to questions from Mr. Glover, Dr. Quinn confirmed that Mr. Brown has quite a good memory notwithstanding his cognitive decline; he can remember his family members and various people at the Hospital. Dr. Quinn was not of the view that Mr. Brown’s good memory could assist in his becoming fit to stand trial in the future. While Mr. Brown has a rudimentary, “ballpark” understanding of the charges against him and understands that Mr. Glover could help him with these charges and to get out of hospital, he is very impulsive and his (cognitive) ability to attend to legal matters, which are complicated, is impaired. Mr. Brown’s discharge to an LTC home could be as soon as one year, once the court case has been resolved. Both Dr. Quinn and HCCSS are satisfied that Mr. Brown could be managed in an LTC home as his risks and needs are similar to those persons with early onset dementia or the like who reside in LTC.
In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Quinn confirmed that despite most of Mr. Brown’s charges having been withdrawn, there is still a prima facie case on the extant charge of sexual assault. Dr. Quinn was not now concerned that Mr. Brown’s status as a forensic patient would impair his eligibility for LTC. Neither were there any financial barriers, as Mr. Brown’s Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP) pension would be paid directly to LTC. Dr. Quinn felt that the benefits to Mr. Brown of being placed in LTC (specialized care, equipment, and increased opportunities to engage with others of a similar age, with similar issues) would outweigh whatever transient disruption to the relationships he has developed at the Hospital would be occasioned by his discharge to LTC. The Outreach team, which consists of some clinical staff already familiar to Mr. Brown, would remain very involved in Mr. Brown’s transition to LTC and if problems arose that LTC staff could not manage, he could be re-admitted to hospital. Dr. Quinn is worried that if Mr. Brown were to remain in hospital as opposed to LTC, his trajectory of decline would be hastened. There is also the issue of staff allocation – Mr. Brown’s needs are such that he requires a high degree of staff support which ultimately takes away from the support available to other patients. Shortly after last year’s annual review, Parkwood’s complex care services advised that Mr. Brown did not qualify for admission there as his condition was not yet sufficiently deteriorated. Dr. Quinn felt that Mr. Brown could be managed with less frequent reporting than four times per month.
Ms. LeBlanc provided evidence to the Board. Ms. LeBlanc movingly described the toll ALD had taken on her siblings and herself. She expressed great concern that Mr. Brown’s sexually aggressive behaviour would pose a threat to elderly co-patients likely to reside with him in LTC. She gave examples of Mr. Brown grabbing women’s breasts and non-stop use of vulgar language as the types of behaviours which made her fearful for the well-being of his co-patients. She felt in her heart that Mr. Brown would decline if moved to LTC and pose a risk of harm to other vulnerable patients. Ms. LeBlanc spoke as well of the complex family dynamics and legal proceedings impacting the timely resolution of the SDM issue.
Mr. Glover provided the Board with an update as to the status of the Superior Court proceedings. There is a court appearance scheduled for January 31st 2025. He also advised that the criminal harassment and sexual assault charges from June 13, 2016 are still before the Court.
Mr. Rows advised that over the course of the coming year, he will provide clarification to the Board and the Hospital of the remaining charges, including copies of relevant documentation.
Analysis and Conclusions
The legal framework for assessing fitness to stand trial has been most recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203. The Court emphasized the need for meaningful participation in proceedings for an individual to be fit for trial. At para. 167 of the judgment the Court emphasized the need for a nuanced, contextual assessment of an accused’s abilities to conduct a defense or to instruct counsel to do so. The purpose of applying the criteria set out in s. 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada is to ensure that an accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial. This includes, among other things, that an accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature, object and possible consequences of the proceedings as well as the ability to make decisions and intelligibly communicate them to counsel or the court. In this regard, an accused need not have the analytical capacity to make decisions in their own best interests.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board has no hesitation in finding that Mr. Brown is unfit to stand trial. The Board accepts Dr. Quinn’s evidence that the nature and extent of Mr. Brown’s grossly impaired cognitive functioning secondary to his neurodegenerative ALD diagnosis preclude him from being able to discuss his legal situation and he is unlikely to be aware of the possible consequences of his proceedings. Although he can, at times, identify his charges in an approximate way (e.g. “raping women”), he is unable to participate in court proceedings nor meaningfully communicate with counsel. The Board further finds that Mr. Brown is unlikely to become fit to stand trial in the future.
On the record before it, the Board finds there is no air of reality to recommending a stay of Mr. Brown’s charges to the court. The Board accepts the evidence that Mr. Brown presents a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public, due to his inability to control impulsive behaviours or to censure his language. Over the course of the review period, he demonstrated behavioural and affective instability, including physically and sexually aggressive behaviours, notwithstanding intensive support and supervision from staff. His neurodegenerative disorder prevents him from acquiring insight into his illness, alleged index offences or the necessity for ongoing treatment, and how all of these factors play into his future risk of violence towards others. Consequently, Mr. Brown’s current constellation of symptoms and behaviours does not meet the second arm of the test set out in s. 672.851 (1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code. As such, a recommendation by the Board to the court to inquire whether Mr. Brown’s charges should be stayed is not appropriate at this time.
The Board further notes that careful monitoring of Mr. Brown’s mental status and related behaviours is warranted due to the progression of his ALDs and its potentially deleterious impact on his already compromised judgment and behavioural controls. The Board is concerned as to the delay associated with the resolution of legal proceedings to determine Mr. Brown’s SDM which prevents the development and implementation of a less onerous and restrictive disposition than is currently in place.
The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition on the terms set out in the Hospital Report at pp 80-81, with the exception of a reduction in the frequency of Mr. Brown’s obligation to report from not less than four times per month to not less than two times per month.
In arriving at our Disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. Brown’s reintegration into the community, his mental condition and his other needs, as required pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 12th day of March 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. T. Mann
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board