Ontario Review Board
Re: Constance Plytas
ORB File No: 6897
Hearing held on: Monday, March 3, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing: Accused: Constance Plytas Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. K. De Freitas Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 17, 2025)
[1]. On January 28, 2016, Ms. Constance Plytas was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of mischief not exceeding $5000, assault with a weapon, utter threat to cause death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
[2]. Ms. Plytas is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 19, 2024, by which she was ordered to be detained at the General Forensic Unit of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with a number of prohibitions and privileges.
[3]. One of the privileges permits Ms. Plytas is to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
[4]. One of the prohibitions directed that Ms. Plytas absolutely abstain from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant.
[5]. On Monday, March 3, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores and conducted the annual review of Ms. Plytas’ Disposition.
Position of the Parties
[6]. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
[7]. Dr. De Freitas appeared as the hospital’s representative as well as being Ms. Plytas’ most responsible physician. She advised of the hospital position that Ms. Plytas remains a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition save and except that the hospital was now asking that the community living clause be expanded so that it reads “to live in the community within 150 kilometres from the Ontario Shores Hospital.
[8]. Ms. MacDonald appeared for the Attorney General. She supported the hospital’s position.
[9]. Mr. Schloss appeared for Ms. Plytas. He also supported the broadening of the area for community living. Mr. Schloss indicated that he would be asking that Ms. Plytas be permitted to use cannabis. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair with respect to the issue of significant threat, Mr. Schloss simply said he would not be making any submissions on that issue.
Index Offences:
[10]. “On April 5, 2014, Ms. Plytas drove her car erratically. She honked her horn, yelled profanities, and made several U-turns. She narrowly missed two pedestrians. She then drove into the parking lot of a towing business and repeatedly rammed the occupied driver’s side door of a tow truck with her car. When passers-by intervened, Ms. Plytas exited her vehicle with a crowbar in her hand and walked towards them. She threatened: “I’ll kill every one of you.”
Ms. Plytas later explained that at the time she believed she was being followed. She tried to escape but she felt surrounded by people. Once in the parking lot of the towing business, she thought steel workers were staring at her and wanted to rape or abduct her. She acknowledged smoking marijuana at the time.”
Evidence at Hearing:
[11]. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated February 19, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Plytas, her personal history, her mental health history, details of the index offences and Ms. Plytas’ course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the NCR finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these Reasons.
[12]. We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of:
Psychotic Disorder due to another medical condition (Multiple Sclerosis)
Histrionic Personality Disorder
Cannabis Use Disorder, in early remission in a controlled environment
Amphetamine Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
[13]. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. De Freitas. Dr. De Freitas advised that this past September Ms. Plytas was transferred from one General Forensic Unit to another General Forensic Unit. It was at that point in time that Dr. De Freitas became Ms. Plytas’ most responsible physician. Dr. De Freitas noted that generally Ms. Plytas has had a good year. There have been no acts of aggression, no necessity for the use of seclusions or any form of restraints. There was, however, one urine drug screen that was positive for the use of cannabis. Ms. Plytas denied using cannabis.
[14]. A significant event was the birth of Ms. Plytas’ son which occurred on January 17, 2025. Dr. De Freitas noted that the Children's Aid Society is involved with this baby. Dr. De Freitas believes that ultimately custody may be awarded to the baby’s father. Dr. De Freitas believes that currently the baby may be in the care of the father’s father or grandfather.
[15]. Ms. Plytas does have visits with the baby. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Dr. De Freitas advised that those visits take place in the hospital.
[16]. Dr. De Freitas confirmed that Ms. Plytas is compliant with her medication requirements.
[17]. The most significant and ongoing problem is finding an appropriate community residence. One issue is that Ms. Plytas refuses to consider any form of long-term care facility and refuses to consider a group home. The hospital has made applications to TRHP (Transitional Rehabilitative Housing Program) and TRHP did not accept Ms. Plytas’ application.
[18]. At one point Ms. Plytas talked about living with her father and grandfather who we understand share a home. Ms. Plytas is no longer prepared to do so as she is experiencing difficulties in her relationship with her father.
[19]. The clinical team was hopeful that Ms. Plytas would be accepted in a March of Dimes residence. Her application to do so was rejected. Dr. De Freitas noted that the basis of the rejection was somehow that Ms. Plytas was not “needy enough”.
[20]. The doctor stated that she seeks to broaden the area in which to find a potential residence by reason of all the difficulties of finding housing to date.
[21]. Dr. De Freitas strongly opposes any amendment to the Board’s Disposition that would permit Ms. Plytas to use cannabis. In Dr. De Freitas’ opinion any use of cannabis would increase the risk to public safety. The use of cannabis would make Ms. Plytas more paranoid and likely would make her more aggressive. The doctor noted that the use of cannabis was a significant factor in the events of the index offence.
[22]. Mr. Schloss asked the doctor whether she would be less opposed to the use of cannabis if the Board directed that any cannabis could only be purchased from a licenced dealer. Dr. De Freitas repeated that she and the clinical team are opposed to any use of cannabis. Mr. Schloss suggested that cannabis was the only substance that Ms. Plytas uses. The doctor noted, however, that there was a modest use of amphetamines and on one occasion Ms. Plytas tested positive for cocaine. Dr. De Freitas repeated her strong opposition to permit any form of substance use.
[23]. Dr. De Freitas agreed that her patient is compliant with medication requirements. The doctor noted that she is being treated with a relatively low dose of medication. The doctor also noted that Ms. Plytas is not willing to increase the dose of medication as requested by the clinical team.
[24]. No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions:
[25]. The doctor maintained her position. The doctor submits the evidence is clear that Ms. Plytas remains a significant threat to public safety and that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. The doctor repeated the strong opposition that she and the clinical team have to any permitted use of substances.
[26]. Ms. MacDonald supported the hospital’s position in its entirety. She supported broadening the area in which Ms. Plytas could live. Ms. MacDonald also strongly opposed an amendment to the Disposition that would permit the use of substances.
[27]. Mr. Schloss made no submissions on the issue of significant threat. Mr. Schloss made no submissions of a Disposition other than a Detention Order. Mr. Schloss agreed with broadening the area of community living. Mr. Schloss did submit that the Board should permit the use of substances. In this regard Mr. Schloss simply noted the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Davies
Findings of the Board:
Significant Threat
[28]. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. De Freitas and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. In particular, we accept the evidence that Ms. Plytas remains a significant threat to public safety. We note the very serious nature of the events of the index offence. We also note that this issue was appropriately not contested at this hearing.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
[29]. This panel accepts that there is no air of reality to consideration of a Conditional Discharge. Ms. Plytas remains in hospital and despite many efforts there is still no community residence that is prepared to accept Ms. Plytas to their facility. We also accept that the hospital absolutely needs to be in a position to approve any community residence. This issue also was appropriately not contested at this hearing.
[30]. The parties and the Board all agreed to expand the search area for an appropriate residence for Ms. Plytas. As indicated, to date various applications have not been accepted. The purpose of the expansion of course is to allow the hospital to approach many more potential residences. The expansion was agreed to by all parties.
[31]. Ultimately, the only issue in dispute in this hearing arises from Ms. Plytas’ request to amend the Disposition so as to permit her to use cannabis. That request is being opposed both by the hospital and by counsel for the Attorney General.
[32]. Mr. Schloss in his submissions simply referred the panel to the Decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Davies and did not draw the panel’s attention to any portion of this Decision.
[33]. This panel has had the benefit of reviewing Davies 2022 ONCA 716.
[34]. I repeat that we accept Dr. De Freitas’ evidence. The doctor testified that the use of cannabis did play a significant role in the events of the index offence. That was not the situation in the case before the Court of Appeal in Davies.
[35]. The doctor’s conclusion that the use of cannabis would lead to assaultive conduct did not depend on there also being a decision by Ms. Plytas to discontinue her medication. This is another significant difference from the facts in Davies.
[36]. In this Board’s opinion the decision in Davies in fact supports maintaining the prohibition against the use of cannabis.
[37]. Accordingly, the Board will continue with a Detention Order directing Ms. Plytas to be detained in a General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores and with the expansion of the area for a potential residence.
[38]. In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Ms. Plytas’ mental condition and her other needs, and Ms. Plytas’ reintegration into society.
DATED this 17th day of March, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board