Re Shaka E. George, 2025 CanLII 23502

Ontario Review Board

Re: Shaka E. George

ORB File No: 5166

Hearing held on: Friday, January 24, 2025

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. R. Buckingham Dr. W. Loza Ms. L. Banks Mr. W. Apted

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Shaka E. George Counsel: Ms. M. Perez

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Senko

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. D. Silver

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 19, 2025)

Introduction

1. On September 2, 2008, Mr. Shaka Eric George was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of carrying a concealed weapon, assault, failure to comply with a probation order, and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Mr. George is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 7, 2023, which detains him at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, on terms and conditions including to live in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in 24-hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On January 24, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”) to conduct the review of Mr. George’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. George was present for the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Mercedes Perez. A Hospital Report dated January 3, 2025, was admitted as Exhibit 1 for the hearing.

4. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. George continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

5. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. George continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of a detention order, on the same terms and conditions, is the necessary and appropriate Disposition at this time.

Index Offences

6. The circumstances of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report, as follows:

“Utter Death Threat

On Wednesday January 30^th, 2008 the accused, Mr. George, was in a Coffee Time donut shop. After attempting to use the ATM, without a card, he asked the employee for a free donut, which was not given to him. Mr. George left the donut shop for a short time, and then returned. He slammed a ‘toonie’ onto the counter, and asked for a corn muffin. While the employee was putting the money into the cash register, he noticed that Mr. George kept looking into the cash drawer, which made him nervous. He performed the transaction quickly, and gave Mr. George his change. Mr. George then asked for a cookie as well, and was informed that he did not have enough money. Mr. George said that he wanted a drink, and tried to open the drink cooler, which had been previously locked. The employee obtained a drink for Mr. George, who paid again with a ‘toonie’. When he was giving Mr. George the change, he said that he no longer wanted the drink, and asked for his money back. The accused then began yelling at the employee, calling him derogatory names. He was told to leave the store, or the police would be called. The accused stated that if the police were called, he would kill the employee. Mr. George then threw the muffin behind the counter. Mr. George stated twice more: “Mother fucker. I’ll kill you if you call the cops.” Mr. George left the donut shop and then the employee called the police and told them the direction Mr. George had gone. The Supplementary Record of Arrest states: “The original police radio call made reference to an armed robbery that had just occurred. Officers attended the vicinity of the Coffee Time donut shop… As a result of how the radio call was received by the officers, the accused was arrested at gunpoint.”

Fail to Comply

Mr. George was on probation for a period of two years. The start date was July 12, 2006. One of the conditions of the probation order was to “Obey a curfew be in your place of residence between the hours of 10pm to 6am unless permission is obtained in writing from the probation officer.”

The Supplementary Record of Arrest indicates that “On Monday, February 4^th, 2008 at approximately 1:56 am the accused was investigated at the McDonald’s restaurant located at Spadina Ave. and Queen Street West, Toronto.”

He told the officers that he had written permission from his probation officer, but that this letter was at the shelter where he was staying. He was unable to produce the letter, and the arrest was effected.

Possession of a Prohibited Weapon

On February 17, 2008 Mr. George was in the Toronto Transit Commission Terminal on 16 Wellesley St in Toronto. He was causing a disturbance by yelling loudly at no one in particular. Despite being cautioned, he continued this behaviour. The special constables were familiar with the accused, as he had behaved in this manner in the past, but previously he would heed the cautions and discontinue the disruptive behaviour. On this occasion, after being asked to leave, after leaving he came back in, opened the main doors to the terminal, and yelled at the constables “Fuck you, you fucking faggots”. When he was placed under arrest, and advised of his rights, the special constables performed a search of his person. In his right front jeans pocket, a silver folding knife was found, the type that would open with a flick of the wrist. Mr. George was subsequently arrested by officers from the Toronto Police Service.

Assault

This account of this offence is copied from the Supplementary Record of Arrest.

“The victim in this matter… resides in the City of Toronto. The accused before the court is Shaka George who presently has no fixed abode. The accused and the victim do not know each other.

On Sunday March 23^rd, 2008 the victim in this matter was standing in the lobby of the Bob Rumball Centre School for the Deaf…

While standing by the front lobby the accused before the court walked up to the victim (unknown to each other) and kissed the victim numerous times about the face and upper chest. The victim is 75 years of age. The accused then fled the scene

INJURIES: no injuries sustained by the victim.

On the 25^th of March 2008 the accused before the court was arrested for another matter at the same location when the incident was discovered. The accused was arrested and charged accordingly.”

Background History

7. Mr. George’s personal, legal and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Briefly summarized, Mr. George is currently 45 years of age and was born in Trinidad. He came to Canada at the age of nine, to join his mother. He had been living with his grandmother in his country of origin. Mr. George’s father left the family soon after Mr. George’s arrival. Mr. George has little education due to intellectual challenges. He did not do well in special education classes. He has never held gainful employment. He did engage in a variety of relationships, one of which produced a daughter, who is not in his care.

8. Mr. George has a history in the criminal justice system including two assault charges that were withdrawn in 2005, and convictions on two charges of assault, mischief under $5,000, and two charges of uttering threats in 2006. There was also a significant assault on his brother, an assault on a stranger who he believed has not shown respect for his girlfriend, and a sexual assault against a stranger.

9. Mr. George has a long history of involvement with the mental health system, including several admissions under the Mental Health Act. The Hospital Report also references a history, prior to the index offences, of “multiple short hospital admissions, characterized by an angry, hostile presentation, accompanied by paranoia and delusional thoughts”. In 1998, he had seven admissions to Wellesley Hospital. His diagnosis was substance induced psychosis. Subsequently to those admissions, Mr. George was admitted to North York General Hospital (“NYGH”). He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder with mood congruent psychotic features. He was non-compliant with follow-up and medication.

10. In 1999, Mr. George was admitted to the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance abuse. In the same year, he was admitted to NYGH, Branson Division, demonstrating psychotic symptoms, angry affect and hostile behaviour. He was later admitted to CAMH (Clarke site) complaining of depression. He was not co-operative with the treatment team and was found to be carrying a knife. He displayed sexual pre-occupation and suspiciousness. Following this, he was admitted to NYGH and received a diagnosis of drug-induced psychosis. He had been abusing marijuana and cocaine. He displayed delusional beliefs and endorsed auditory hallucinations. On this occasion, his differential diagnosis included drug-induced psychosis and schizophrenia.

11. In 2003, Mr. George had several hospital admissions. At times he endorsed auditory hallucinations, and there was evidence of substance abuse. He was described as “extremely psychotic” when admitted to St. Joseph’s Health Centre and was sexually inappropriate with female patients. In 2004, a court ordered assessment resulted in a diagnosis of mild mental retardation and polysubstance abuse disorder.

12. In 2007, he was given a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, a likely drug-induced paranoid psychotic state, and a developmental delay. In 2008, he was again admitted to hospital due to a drug-induced psychosis.

13. Mr. George’s current diagnoses are:

i) mild intellectual disability;

ii) substance induced psychotic disorder, by history;

iii) schizoaffective disorder;

iv) substance use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment; and

v) other specified personality disorder.

Evidence at the Hearing

14. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report dated January 3, 2025, and through the oral testimony of Dr. J. Dupré. This evidence is summarized below.

15. Dr. Dupré advised that there were no significant updates to the Hospital Report and corrected an omission in the list of medication at p. 56 of the Report. Mr. George is also taking a daily dose of divalproex 1000 mg.

16. Over the course of the past year, Mr. George has continued to live in an independent DSO unit managed by Christian Horizons in Vaughan, with 24-hour supervision. His care was transferred to Dr. Dupré from Dr. Kung in August 2024.

17. Overall, Mr. George has had a positive year, with fewer hospital admissions, though he continues to exhibit problems with treatment compliance, affective and behavioural instability, and ongoing cannabis abuse.

18. A Form 49 admission was required on two occasions to deal with episodes of alcohol and drug use and missed medications. Mr. George has a girlfriend where he has been spending several nights per week at her home, and vice versa. This has led to instances of missed medications. Mr. George’s girlfriend also has anger and substances use problems which results in the relationship being volatile at times. Dr. Dupré believes that a detention order continues to be required to retain the ability to admit Mr. George to hospital to avoid a more serious escalations of these types of episodes.

19. Dr. Dupré testified that though Mr. George might at times meet Mental Health Act criteria for admission, he does not at other times, such as when he misses a dose of medication.

20. Mr. George has had issues with housing instability in the past, though he maintained stable housing in the community in the last year. The hospital believes that accommodation approval remains necessary.

21. In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Silver, Dr. Dupré responded as follows:

a) Mr. George’s cannabis use has, in the past, led to increased symptoms including paranoia, irritability, and anger. Though he continues to use cannabis regularly (with 24 out of 38 cannabis-positive urine drug tests), it appears to be in lower amounts. Dr. Dupré believes that Mr. George’s Disposition should continue to include an abstention clause. His insight regarding the need to abstain is limited though the team continues to address this with him.

b) When he is non-compliant with treatment, Mr. George has a history of decompensation requiring admission to hospital. Absent an ORB Disposition, Dr. Dupré believes that Mr. George would discontinue medication.

c) Despite living in the community in supervised accommodation, as per the terms of his Disposition, Mr. George is apparently allowed to have overnights at his girlfriend’s home. The hospital has not sought to admit him because he occasionally stays away from his supervised housing.

d) Mr. George is currently engaged in weekly therapy with Dr. Cripps, though he does occasionally miss some of these appointments for various reasons, such as losing his Presto card.

22. In response to questions posed to her by Mr. George’s counsel, Ms. Perez, Dr. Dupré responded as follows:

a) Mr. George has made progress in how he deals with his environment. He is less prone to aggression and can discuss his frustrations, rather than responding with physical or verbal aggression.

b) He has been living in his current high-support community housing since 2023. He is enjoying more privacy and freedom than in his previous housing. He feels less invaded which has historically contributed to many incidents and conflicts with co-residents.

c) Mr. George and his partner have been together for over 10 years. He enjoys breaks from his current housing and stays at his girlfriends. This also appears to be where he uses substances.

d) Mr. George takes his medications orally, in the morning and evening. He is sometimes missing doses when he is staying over at his girlfriend’s home. Dr. Dupré acknowledged that this has not resulted in any increased violence, so far.

e) Mr. George has a history of crack-cocaine use. He now has insight into the impact that such drugs can have on his mental status and has not used them in many years. His alcohol use remains intermittent.

f) Mr. George is externally motivated by his ORB Disposition and wants to move through the system.

23. In response to questions posed to her by members of the Panel, Dr. Dupré responded as follows:

a) Mr. George’s compliance with medication is externally driven by his Disposition. Absent the ORB, he would represent an increased risk of physical and psychological harm to others.

b) A conditional discharge would not be adequate to manage the risk, as the hospital needs to readmit him to hospital, which has happened frequently, even in the past year. In addition, absent an accommodation condition, Mr. George would seek independent living.

c) In tolerating Mr. George’s absences from his residence, the team is trying to balance the risks and the therapeutic benefit of more privacy and independence. The team keeps in close contact with his housing and maintains supervision of his mental status. Dr. Dupré acknowledged that it makes sense to have a plan regarding the overnights and that they have been regularized. It could also be an option for Mr. George to attend at a pharmacy to receive his medication on those days.

Evidence of Shaka George

24. Mr. George testified at his hearing. He stated that his behaviour has been good in the past year and that he got in trouble only once. His case worker helps him with his behaviour.

25. His goal in life is to be able to take care of his family. He would like to move out in 2 or 3 years. He knows that it is important not to drink or use cannabis too much. Weed helps him to stay mellow, but crack makes him crazy and psychotic. He stated that he might have to take pills for the rest of his life.

26. Mr. George would like to continue seeing Dr. Cripps as she helps him deal with people in his group home and to not swear or make threats.

27. The hospital’s risk assessment is set out at pages 58 to 62 of the Hospital Report. Specifically, under the heading Re-offence Scenario, the report states as follows:

“In risk assessment, one of the best predictors is a patient’s history of violence. Mr. George’s history of violence includes charges of assault and uttering threats. Mr. George was charged with carrying a prohibited weapon in the index offences. He has been involved in numerous fights and incidents of threatening behavior in the community and in hospital, and most recently in 2023 required a long admission and suffered the loss of housing. His violent behaviour is often in response to perceived disrespect or provocation from those he is interacting with and is affectively reactive and impulsive in nature.

If Mr. George is to reoffend this will likely transpire in the following way: Mr. George would likely be involved in an altercation with others that could result in physical assault. He is likely to perceive himself as being slighted and feel himself under attack. Given his impulsivity and poor coping skills, he is unlikely to modulate his behavior in a socially inappropriate fashion. Under such circumstances he is likely to act in a violent and aggressive fashion as he has done in the past. Should he become non-compliant with treatment, or use illicit drugs, the likelihood of violence would substantially increase as he would be more impulsive and paranoid, and therefore more likely get into confrontation that could escalate to violence. The likelihood of noncompliance and substance use are high absent the supervision of the ORB.”

28. No other evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

29. The hospital submits that Mr. George continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is the maintenance of the current detention order on the same terms and conditions.

30. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Silver, supported the hospital’s position.

31. Counsel for Mr. George, Ms. Perez, submits that Mr. George no longer meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public. She highlighted Mr. George’s very positive year, including the fact that he has not required any lengthy hospital admissions since November 2023. Mr. George has remained stable despite having more independence. He has demonstrated significant improvement in coping with situations in his housing and one of his key coping mechanisms is the ability to leave the residence. He maintains supportive relationships in the community. Despite concerns around medication compliance and cannabis use, neither have been destabilizing in the past year.

Analysis and Conclusion

32. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. George continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

33. Mr. George suffers from major mental illnesses, namely a Mild Intellectual Disability, Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder, by history, Schizoaffective Disorder, Substance Use Disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment, and Other Specified Personality Disorder. He is at risk to re-offend, as supported by the actuarial risk assessment contained in the Hospital Report.

34. Mr. George has a significant history of verbal and physical aggression. He has a history of non-compliance with psychiatric treatment, as well as a considerable history of drug and alcohol misuse.

35. Mr. George has little insight into his condition. His history shows that when he is not under strict supervision, he is likely to refuse medication and will act aggressively and will abuse substances. Mr. George is externally motivated by his ORB Disposition and without it, he is likely to discontinue treatment and seek to live independently, which he ill-equipped to do. This will most certainly lead to a serious decompensation of his mental condition and increased likelihood of reoffending.

36. The evidence persuades us that a detention order continues to be necessary to manage the risk posed by Mr. George. To Mr. George’s credit, he has had one of his better years since being under the jurisdiction of the Board. He had far fewer admissions to hospital and appears to have developed some better coping strategies which have helped to minimize instances of verbal and physical aggression. He continues to require a high degree of oversight to ensure his compliance with treatment and to control his substance use, which is prohibited under the terms of his Disposition.

37. Accordingly, having considered the four factors as set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society, and his other needs, the Board finds that a continuation of the detention order on the same terms and conditions continues to be the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition in all of the circumstances.

DATED this 19^th day of March, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board