Re Steed Dewayne Valentine, 2025 CanLII 23513

Re: Steed Dewayne Valentine

ORB File No: 6024

Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 5, 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: Steed D. Valentine Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 18, 2025)

Introduction

1. On December 13, 2011, Mr. Steed Dewayne Valentine was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges assault and failure to comply with probation order, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).

2. On March 5, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Mr. Valentine’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Valentine was subject to a Disposition of the Board dated March 18, 2024, which discharges him on certain terms and conditions, including, among other provisions, that he:

a. Reside at Canadian Mental Health Association housing; and

b. Abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant; including cannabinoids and that any medical use of the foregoing must be approved by the person in charge or his or her designate.

3. Mr. Valentine was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Jocelyne Boissonneault, throughout the proceedings.

4. A Hospital Report dated February 13, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. An email of Jule Wright, CMHA Durham, dated March 3, 2025, to Ontario Shores, sets out incidents / interactions on February 21, 2025 and February 28, 2025. This email was entered as Exhibit 2.

5. The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Valentine continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Valentine continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board orders that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

7. Schizophrenia;

Cannabis Use Disorder;

Antisocial Personality Disorder; and

Mild Intellectual Disability.

Position of the Parties

8. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. The hospital took the position that Mr. Valentine continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with no change to the terms of the Disposition Order.

9. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, submitted that Mr. Valentine remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. She supported the position of the hospital.

10. Counsel for Mr. Valentine, Ms. Boissonneault, requested that Mr. Valentine be absolutely discharged. In the alternative, if the Board finds that Mr. Valentine continues to meet the threshold for significant threat, Ms. Boissonneault supports the Conditional Discharge with the exclusion of alcohol and cannabis from the substances prohibition in term 1(c).

Index Offence

11. Page 8 of the Hospital Report sets out the detailed circumstances of the index offences, which need not be repeated in full in these Reasons. However, in brief, the circumstances are:

On September 17, 2011, the victim, a 54-year-old female was on walking to church with her husband in Toronto. The victim walked past the accused, who was lying on a bench. The accused leered at her. She nodded to him and stated, “God bless you”, and kept walking. The accused approached the victim while yelling at her and then punched her in the face. He then spit in her face and continued to accost the victim. The victim’s husband chased the accused. Officers in the area at the time of the assault witnessed the accused running away through traffic and arrested him.

Background and History

12. The Hospital Report of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”) contains extensive information regarding Mr. Valentine’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail.

13. However, in summary, we note that Mr. Valentine is a 37-year-old male at the time of the hearing. He is single and with no dependants. He has a grade 10 education. He does not have an employment history. He is supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”).

14. Mr. Valentine has a history of marijuana use and occasional alcohol use.

15. He had a history of mental illness prior to the index offence. He was first admitted to hospital from November 30 to December 6, 2007, when he experienced symptoms of acute psychosis including paranoid ideation that led to an assault charge. He was noted to have been abusing marijuana. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, paranoid type and substance abuse. Mr. Valentine underwent a court ordered assessment of his fitness to stand trial on November 30, 2010, after having been charged with assault and assault causing bodily harm. He was noted to be suffering from paranoid delusions. He was found fit to stand trial.

16. Mr. Valentine has a history of twenty-two criminal charges starting in August 2003 through May 2011 including several assault charges and an armed robbery.

17. Prior to his arrest on the index offences, Mr. Valentine was staying at his mother’s residence, in shelters, or on the streets.

18. Mr. Valentine is incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment. The deficient insight into his illness is at the core of his incapacity.

Course Since Last Disposition

19. The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Valentine’s course since the last Disposition. In summary, Mr. Valentine has continued to reside in the community supported by the Forensic Outpatient Services (FOS) team. He has visits from the FOS team weekly and he reports to Ontario Shores weekly.

20. Mr. Valentine resides at Petre House, a group home within the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) program. He transitioned to this residence from his prior community residence in April 2024 after continued interpersonal conflict at the prior group home. This change in housing has allowed Mr. Valentine to gain more independent skills, which he continues to develop. At times, the Petre House staff have raised concerns about his behaviours relating to inappropriate boundaries with female staff, resistiveness to housing expectations and rules, and interpersonal conflict with staff. He has difficulty establishing a strong rapport with staff.

21. Mr. Valentine’s insight into his mental illness and need for medication remain significantly underdeveloped. On January 28, 2025, he told Dr. Pallandi that he does not have any mental health issues. He stated he will take medication until he gets his Absolute Discharge. He stated that the medication does nothing for him because he is not schizophrenic.

22. Mr. Valentine’s urine drug screens remained negative for drugs or alcohol throughout the year, though there have been two irregularities of concern.

23. A family member contacted the hospital on February 11, 2025, to advise that Mr. Valentine had been drinking alcohol and that he timed his consumption around urine collections to avoid detection. He also attended a family function with a bottle of alcohol. The Hospital Report notes that he has voiced a desire to return to cannabis use in the future absent an ORB Disposition.

24. Mr. Valentine has declined formal psychoeducational educational groups.

Evidence at the Hearing

25. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibit, and oral evidence of Dr. Pallandi, Mr. Valentine’s psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report, and oral evidence of Mr. Valentine. Dr. Pallandi testified as follows:

26. Mr. Valentine has recently been issued a warning letter at his residence (Petre House). If he gets two letters he will be evicted from his residence. The letter notes two incidents, one on February 21 and the other on February 28, 2025. In the first incident, the CHO lead with CMHA Durham (Ms. Wright), heard Mr. Valentine yelling very loudly at someone on the phone at the home. Specifically, he was heard yelling, “I will fuck you up! I bought you a Valentine’s Day present and now I don’t have money for weed!” Further, on that Monday and Wednesday, Mr. Valentine was observed sitting in a chair in the living room in a dissociative state and did not engage when asked by the CHO lead if he needed anything or had anything he wished to discuss. There was also an inappropriate flirtatious incident on February 28. In the letter, Ms. Wright enquired how often Mr. Valentine is tested for substance use and whether he has been tested for ‘spice’, if there is a way.

27. Intermittently, the staff have brought forward concerns about how Mr. Valentine interacts with other people.

28. Dr. Pallandi testified that he needs to be mindful that Mr. Valentine’s housing is becoming unstable.

29. The FOS team has ongoing concerns about whether Mr. Valentine is using substances, so the team is judicious with urine drug screening (“UDS”). There have been two irregularities in the UDSs. In August 2024, there were two or three samples on the extended screening (which captures prescription drugs) that came back as negative for psychiatric prescriptions, which suggests that he had been non-compliant with treatment. FOS then informed Mr. Valentine that they can see from his UDS if he is taking his medications. Since that time, the medications have always shown up in the UDS samples. The second of the irregularities occurred in February 2025 when one UDS was positive for an alcohol metabolite, which is the biochemical indicator that someone has been using alcohol. So, there is a question as to whether he has been evading the detection of alcohol.

30. Mr. Valentine’s mother reported that Mr. Valentine appeared with a bottle of alcohol in his hand when he attended a family function. He has talked about consuming alcohol to his brother. The discovery of the alcohol metabolite ties into the time that the treatment team was advised he was talking about using alcohol and also the time that he was reported by Ms. Wright to be in a dissociated state sitting on the couch at the home.

31. Mr. Valentine remains a significant threat because the FOS has concerns about compliance with medication during this reporting period, along with the use of substances. The team has observed fluctuations in Mr. Valentine’s mental state. Recently, Mr. Valentine is much more closed to questions about sleep or appetite. However, the biggest issue is Mr. Valentine’s housing instability. He cannot live homeless or in a shelter without raising his risk of harm to the public. For Mr. Valentine, homelessness is a global destabilizing lifestyle.

32. If the Board removed the cannabis and alcohol prohibition from the Disposition, Mr. Valentine’s risk would escalate because substances are considered a criminogenic risk factor for him, and he would return to substance use. Mr. Valentine has expressed an interest in using both alcohol and cannabis if he receives an Absolute Discharge.

33. Mr. Valentine requires CMHA housing to monitor him.

34. Mr. Valentine wants to use cannabis, which is part of his Rastafarian lifestyle. It is not appropriate for him to use cannabis because he has a cannabis use disorder, which goes to the issue of him having significant dysfunction from its use. Cannabis is implicated in a number of relevant difficulties in his history including an assault charge where he was noted to be abusing THC. Cannabis is a significant criminogenic risk factor for him. The treatment team has many suspicions about his use of cannabis this reporting period, so the timing is not right to be removing the cannabis prohibition from his Disposition.

35. Page 32 of the Hospital Report notes that Mr. Valentine returned to the hospital unit in an intoxicated state. Disinhibition caused by alcohol is a problem. Alcohol affects his general manageability at the very least. However, cannabis is the more prominent problem for him.

36. Mr. Valentine has directly told Dr. Pallandi that absent the cannabis prohibition in his Disposition, he would return to cannabis use. Mr. Valentine does not understand that his cannabis use is risk-enhancing. Generally, an order of the ORB curbs Mr. Valentine’s return to more extensive use of cannabis.

37. Mr. Valentine’s insight into his illness is underdeveloped. Dr. Pallandi had a long discussion with him about insight into his illness in anticipation of this ORB hearing. Mr. Valentine questioned why he would need medication because he believes he is not mentally ill. Mr. Valentine doubts he needs medication. Dr. Pallandi is very concerned that Mr. Valentine would discontinue his medications if granted an Absolute Discharge.

38. Mr. Valentine does not accept responsibility for the index offence.

39. Mr. Valentine has been largely compliant with his medication since admission twelve years ago. The medications control his symptoms of psychosis. He is currently incapable and has not regained treatment capacity at any point since found incapable. Mr. Valentine’s mother is his substitute decision maker (“SDM”). She has historically shown a willingness to consent to medications to address his symptoms.

40. In 2016 to 2017, Mr. Valentine used cannabis regularly while in hospital. Cannabis use did not lead to psychotic symptoms while Mr. Valentine was in the controlled setting of the hospital.

41. Mr. Valentine meets Box B criteria in the Mental Health Act should he decompensate on a Conditional or Absolute Discharge, provided an admitting hospital knows his background.

42. Due to Mr. Valentine’s mental health fluctuations in the reporting year, Mr. Valentine is not likely to agree to return to hospital. Because he more than likely meets Box B criteria, Dr. Pallandi can still recommend a continuation of the Conditional Discharge. Mr. Valentine would likely see a Detention Disposition as a step backwards in his rehabilitation.

43. In a clinical encounter on January 28, 2025, Dr. Pallandi explored with Mr. Valentine what might happen if the Board agreed to Mr. Valentine’s request for an Absolute Discharge. Mr. Valentine stated he does not have a mental illness. He had no clear plans for follow up psychiatric care and confirmed, “If I don’t have to follow up, I won’t.” Mr. Valentine’s motivation to comply with the terms of the Disposition are largely externally motivated.

44. If Mr. Valentine smokes on the premises of his CMHA housing, he would be evicted. There is a real practical downside to taking out the cannabis prohibition as long as he requires community residences because it creates a real risk that he could be evicted. However, Mr. Valentine smokes cigarettes and complies with the house rules and smokes only off the property.

45. Mr. Valentine says he would like to smoke cannabis because of his religious beliefs (Rastafarianism). Dr. Pallandi acknowledged that cannabis carries an important role in that religion.

46. He does not believe that Mr. Valentine is using ‘spice’ because it creates unpleasant effects and is expensive.

47. If Mr. Valentine were to receive an Absolute Discharge, the FOS team would follow him in the community until non-forensic care was arranged.

48. It is the unanimous belief of the clinical team that Mr. Valentine remains a significant risk. Similarly, it the is unanimous opinion of the treatment team that the prohibition of alcohol and cannabis remain in the Disposition. Without a cannabis prohibition, Mr. Valentine will increase his use. His use of cannabis leads to problematic behaviour.

49. Mr. Valentine also gave oral evidence at the hearing. He testified that he has not smoked marijuana since his discharge to the community. He states that he would like to smoke cannabis because of his religion. He would like to drink moderately at family gatherings.

Submissions

50. The parties provided extensive submissions. The hospital submitted that Mr. Valentine is a significant threat to the public and the Conditional Discharge should be continued on the same terms as last year. There is a distinct decline in engagement with the treatment team and his CMHA housing workers. Housing, substance use, and medication compliance are significant areas of concern. In consideration of an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Valentine has no follow up plans in place and no housing plans. He plans to return to regular substance use and stop using medications. Ms. Szabo submitted that the Davies case (Davies (Re), 2022 ONCA 716) is distinguishable from the current matter before the Board. Despite Mr. Valentine being in a highly supervised setting, there have been a distinct changes in his presentation recently. Mr. Valentine’s cannabis use finds its way into important parts of the Hospital Report and is an important criminogenic risk factor. Further, the fact that he has been trying to evade the detection of cannabis and alcohol is significant. The treatment team has been mitigating the risks with a high level of supervision. Cannabis has been linked to an assault in the past. In February 2025, during the time that there is concern of alcohol consumption, Mr. Valentine reported being annoyed with others in the community when they are laughing and voiced thought of wanting to stab them due to his annoyance. The hospital submitted that this is not the appropriate time to be removing alcohol and cannabis prohibitions.

51. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that they adopt the submissions of the hospital. In addition, Ms. MacDonald submitted that an inference can be drawn that there was a link of substances to the index offence given the timing of the index offence in relation to the assessment interview with Dr. Angus McDonald.

52. Ms. Boissonneault submitted that Mr. Valentine has been living in the community for three years without violent behaviour. She submitted that the issues pointed out in Exhibit 2 can be considered trivial harm and not serious criminal conduct. She submitted that a lack of insight in and of itself is not a reason not to grant an Absolute Discharge. Insight can only be part of the analysis. She further submitted that Mr. Valentine’s mother is his SDM and, as such, he will continue to take medication. Ms. Boissonneault submitted that, if the Board finds that Mr. Valentine continues to represent a significant threat, then the Disposition must be the least onerous and least restrictive, including the removal of the cannabis and alcohol provision. She submitted that there is no clear evidence that cannabis or alcohol was involved at the time of the index offence. Mr. Valentine has used cannabis during his tenure under the Board and, although his behaviour may have been problematic, there was no serious or harmful behaviour that raised the level of risk to the public. She submitted that any link to violence due to use of cannabis or alcohol was speculative.

Analysis and Conclusions

53. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Valentine remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Were Mr. Valentine not subject to a Conditional Discharge, there is a real and foreseeable risk, that is more than speculative in nature, that Mr. Valentine would engage in behaviour likely to result in serious physical or psychological harm to the public.

54. Mr. Valentine suffers from schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, and cannabis use disorder. When unwell, he presents with psychotic symptoms, which have resulted in conduct that is violent in the past.

55. Leading up to his index offences, in 2006, Mr. Valentine was charged with an assault perpetrated while using cannabis. From 2006 to 2010 he was charged with several violent offences including several charges of assault and assault with a weapon. In 2010, he underwent a court ordered assessment of his fitness to stand trial on a charge of assault causing bodily harm. He was noted to be suffering from paranoid delusions and disorganized behaviour.

56. Mr. Valentine has limited insight into his illness and the effect of alcohol and cannabis on his mental state.

57. On February 21, 2025, Mr. Valentine threatened on the phone “I will fuck you up! I bought you a present for Valentine’s Day and now I don’t have money for weed!” It is clear from this interaction that Mr. Valentine’s intention is to use cannabis. He has used cannabis, at times to his personal peril, during his time under the jurisdiction of the ORB. It is very concerning that he is willing to make threats due to his apparent lack of funds to buy it.

58. Dr. Pallandi’s expert opinion is that cannabis and alcohol are important criminogenic factors in Mr. Valentine’s case. He was sensitive to the fact that marijuana is important in the Rastafarian religion. However, it is his expert opinion that Mr. Valentine’s cannabis and alcohol use will increase if a Disposition does not restrict his use. An increase in alcohol and cannabis use will put the public at risk.

59. Despite Mr. Valentine’s attempts to hide his alcohol and cannabis use this year, it is clear that he is engaging in the use of these substances. Both the housing staff and FOS have recently noticed a distinct change in Mr. Valentine’s presentation for the worse. Fortunately, his supervised housing and high level of FOS supports have mitigated significant incidents this year. Without these supports, Mr. Valentine would engage in a greater level of substance use, fall away from his psychiatric medications, suffer a deterioration of his mental health and likely engage in criminal behaviour similar to his index offence.

60. If Mr. Valentine was not subject to an ORB Disposition, it is Dr. Pallandi’s expert opinion that he would return to the use of substances. There is evidence that both alcohol and cannabis use would cause a decline in Mr. Valentine’s mental state and increase the likelihood of threat to the public to an unacceptable level.

61. Despite having an SDM to consent to medications, if Mr. Valentine were not under the auspices of the ORB, he would stop taking medication. He is not on a long-acting injectable medication. He has stated that he does not believe he has a mental illness and would stop medication if he were not compelled by the ORB to take his medication. Dr. Pallandi has described Mr. Valentine as externally motivated. It is clear to the Board that Mr. Valentine would discontinue medication, regardless of the fact that an SDM exists, which would result in decompensation in his mental state.

62. Mr. Valentine’s housing is unstable. He has already received one warning letter. A second warning letter will result in his eviction. Dr. Pallandi opined that housing instability is one of Mr. Valentine’s biggest risk factors. Though Mr. Valentine’s housing is at risk, he has cooperated with rehousing in the recent past. It is the treatment team’s opinion that Mr. Valentine would cooperate again if necessary. A Conditional Discharge is necessary to ensure that the hospital can assist Mr. Valentine with placement in appropriate housing should he lose his current housing.

63. The Board agrees with and relies on Clinical Assessment of Risk at page 19 of the Hospital Report. This is excerpted below as follows:

“Mr. Valentine's clinical risk emanates from his underlying major mental illness, his propensity to use substances and the deleterious effects that they have upon him, coupled most importantly with a lack of insight into his illness, his treatment needs and the association between symptoms of his illness and problematic conduct.

Fortunately, with close supervision, it appears that the current Disposition has been adequate to manage the risk and readmission to hospital for risk-management has not been necessary. We remain of the opinion, that if requested he would return to hospital for stabilization and/or risk management.

His current housing may well be becoming more tenuous, given concerns about his behavior which are similar to those prior to his last change of residence. Nevertheless, given that in the past he has cooperated with his rehousing, we are of the opinion that he would similarly be agreeable to recommendations that we might make for housing, should this need arise.

At this juncture, we would opine that his risk remains in the moderate range, considering the continuation of the current Disposition and its’ specific conditions.”

64. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is responsible to shape a Disposition for the coming year.

65. The primary issue of contention is clause 1(c) of the Disposition, specifically as it relates to alcohol and cannabis.

66. The Board relies on Dr. Pallandi’s expert evidence that cannabis is a criminogenic factor for Mr. Valentine. As stated above, he was charged with assault when using cannabis and experiencing acute psychosis in 2007. In an interview with Dr. Angus McDonald on October 26, 2011, Mr. Valentine admitted to alcohol use. With respect to marijuana, he stated, “it wouldn’t be smart to say I smoke; that’s illegal”. The Board accepts that, given the timing of this interview shortly after the index offence, and the roundabout admission regarding cannabis use, it is likely that Mr. Valentine was using cannabis at the time of the offence. More recently, Mr. Valentine has experienced a decompensation in his presentation. On February 28, 2025, his threat by telephone was connected to his ability to use “weed”. This threat is partially responsible for the first warning by his housing provider. A loss of his housing could be devastating to Mr. Valentine’s ability to remain in the community without increasing his risk to the public.

67. For years, Mr. Valentine has used cannabis and/or alcohol to the point of clear intoxication, in contravention of his Disposition. In fact, in the past (2016), his level of intoxication led to a Code Blue being called when he was found unresponsive on the floor laying face down. The Hospital Report notes, at page 28, that historically cannabis use in the context of active psychotic symptoms likely exacerbated the symptoms and worsened judgment, disorganization, and impulse control. Mr. Valentine’s duplicitousness regarding his cannabis use does not seem to have changed over the years. He may be continuing to use cannabis in contravention of his Disposition, often while maintaining he does not do so. The Board is very concerned that if Mr. Valentine’s Disposition did not include a cannabis and alcohol prohibition, his level of use would increase significantly and lead to criminal behaviour and a loss of his housing.

68. Dr. Pallandi further opined that alcohol is disinhibiting. During a time of suspected alcohol use in February 2025, Mr. Valentine reported being annoyed with others in the community when they are laughing and voiced thought of wanting to stab them due to his annoyance.

69. For these reasons, the majority of the Board finds that the prohibition of cannabis remains necessary and appropriate. The majority of the Board (J. Goldenberg, Dr. S. Wiseman, S. Duffy) also finds that a prohibition of alcohol use remains necessary and appropriate.

70. Given the totality of the evidence before us, the Board believes that Mr. Valentine would stop his medications due to a lack of insight and lack of external motivations if he were not subject to a Conditional Discharge. Therefore, and Absolute Discharge would not be appropriate at this time. Discontinuing medication would likely result in decompensation of his mental health, re-emergence of psychotic symptoms, and ultimately serious harm to members of the public.

71. After considering all evidence and submissions, the Board finds that that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition, is continuation of a Conditional Discharge with terms as set out in our formal Disposition.

MINORITY REASONS

(C. Murray, Dr. W. Johnson)

72. The minority of the Board finds that the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition would exclude alcohol from the substances prohibition.

73. It clearly is not in the best interest of Mr. Valentine to consume alcohol. The minority urge Mr. Valentine to remain abstinent from alcohol, or use alcohol rarely, for his own well-being. However, the minority believes that there is insufficient evidence that alcohol, in and of itself, has led to criminal behaviour in the past or will in the future.

74. During February 2025, during a time of suspected alcohol use, Mr. Valentine reported being annoyed with others in the community when they are laughing and voiced thought of wanting to stab them due to his annoyance. The minority does not find that there is sufficient evidence to attribute this thought of violence to alcohol specifically, as it was possible he was also consuming cannabis and/or he was non-adherent to his oral medication at that time. The minority takes notice of the fact that olanzapine has a 33-hour half-life. As such, extended urine drug screens may not identify missed doses of medication accurately.

75. The minority is mindful that that alcohol is disinhibiting for Mr. Valentine. This may lead to an increase in the use of cannabis and/or refusal of medication, resulting in a corresponding increase in risk to the public. However, in the opinion of the minority, there is not sufficient evidence of his current alcohol use to support that finding.

76. The minority finds that there is insufficient evidence to support the position that alcohol use will lead to the loss of his housing, whether directly or indirectly.

77. For these reasons, the minority finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish that alcohol consumption, specifically, increases Mr. Valentine’s risk to the public safety. Therefore, the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition would exclude alcohol from the substances prohibition.

DATED this 18^th^ day of March, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. C. Murray

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board