Evan Bland (Re), 2025 CanLII 23534

Ontario Review Board

Re: Evan Bland

ORB File No: 7412

Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 21, 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: Evan Bland Counsel: Ms. L. Shafran The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. S. Zelaya Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Ponesse

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 18, 2025)

Introduction

1On September 4, 2018, Mr. Bland was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two charges of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2Mr. Bland is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 2, 2024, which discharges him subject to certain conditions including to report to the person in charge once every two weeks; to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant; to submit samples and random testing; a weapons prohibition; on consent to take treatment pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code and other ancillary conditions.

3On January 21, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) to review Mr. Bland’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Bland was present for his hearing, represented by counsel, Ms. L. Shafran. Dr. Ian Swayze, who is Mr. Bland’s attending psychiatrist, appeared virtually for the hearing. Mr. Bland’s CMHA caseworker also attended the hearing.

4The issues for the hearing are whether Mr. Bland 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 set out at s 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

5For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Bland no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, and accordingly, shall be granted an absolute discharge.

Index Offences

6The details of the index offences are set out in last year's Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On the evening of December 17, 2017, Mr. Bland entered Beach Food Mart Variety Store on Kingston Road, and attempted to buy a can of pop with his debit card. When advised by the store owner, Mr. C., that there would be an added charge for using his debit card, Mr. Bland became angry and stormed out of the store.

At 1:13 a.m. on December 18, 2017, Mr. Bland returned to the store, which was then closed, pulled a baseball bat out of his backpack, and used it to smash out the store’s front window. He then fled the area. At 9:30 a.m., he returned again, entered the store, began yelling at Mr. C., and punched him directly in the mouth. Mr. C’s wife intervened, and pushing Mr. Bland, forced him out of the store. Outside, the physical confrontation continued, and Mr. Bland again punched Mr. C. in the face.

He then left and was walking across Kingston Road, when he was confronted by Mr. B. who asked what he was doing. He punched Mr. B. in the face twice, and fled the area.

Police were then called, Mrs. C. told them where she saw Mr. Brand go, and they located and arrested him nearby, and transported him to the police station. Minor facial injuries were suffered by Mr. C. and Mr. B. Damage to the store was estimated at $700.”

Background History

7Mr. Bland's personal, legal and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Bland is now 43 years old and was born in Scarborough, Ontario.

8With respect to his educational background, Mr. Bland reportedly completed Grade 10 and had a history of fighting and truancy in school. He left home at the age of 18, due to conflict with his parents. He had odd jobs, stole from others, was supported by welfare for a year, then qualified for ODSP benefits. He reported having relationships while in his twenties, one ending when his partner’s mother called police, followed by criminal harassment charges for phoning his ex-partner, and another ending due to drug use.

9Mr. Bland’s parents saw significant changes in him by the time he left home, reporting that he had dropped out of school, become isolative, paranoid that they were plotting against him, and hearing voices commanding him to kill his parents. He reportedly acted out aggressively towards his father and brother in a paranoid state.

10Mr. Bland has an extensive history of alcohol and cannabis use, and some use of cocaine, with serious impacts on his behaviour.

11He has an extensive history of mental health care, with numerous psychiatric admissions often brought to hospital by police due to his violence and threats (including a threat to use a gun), with psychotic symptoms including persecutory delusions and command hallucinations, and symptoms of mood disorder, including depression and suicidality. Mr. Bland reported following up with a Sunnybrook psychiatrist from the ages of 18 to 35, and then with a Michael Garron Hospital (“MGH”) psychiatrist, whom he had not seen “in a long time” at the time of the index offences. He has been treated with antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications to good effect – but has a long history of not taking his medications, using cannabis, falling away from follow-up, and having intermittent periods of decompensation in his illness.

12Mr. Bland’s current diagnoses are:

i. schizoaffective disorder; bipolar type, in full remission; ii. substance use disorder; alcohol and cannabis; and iii. a differential diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder/traits.

Evidence at the Hearing

13The hospital's evidence was presented in its report dated January 8, 2025, and through the oral testimony of Dr. Ian Swayze, Mr. Bland’s attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.

14Dr. Swayze adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and advised that he had no material updates given the recency of the report.

15Dr. Swayze testified that Mr. Bland has been successfully residing in the community since October 29, 2020, in an independent apartment in the community, without any reported incidents in the last reporting period. Mr. Bland is fully compliant with all aspects of his treatment. He attends all his appointments, including attending every four weeks to receive his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication which he takes without objection, concern, or any reported side effects. Mr. Bland also takes oral olanzapine in the evening at a dose of 7.5 milligrams which he manages on his own. According to the results of his random urine drug screens, olanzapine is present, which suggests that Mr. Bland is taking it appropriately.

16Mr. Bland has been living in the same apartment for approximately ten years though he did have periods of readmission to hospital during which time he was able to maintain his accommodation. Following his last admission to hospital, Mr. Bland returned to his apartment upon being discharged on October 29, 2020. There are no mental health supports on site at this apartment. There are no reports whatsoever that Mr. Bland has engaged in any problematic behaviours. On the contrary, Dr. Swayze reports that Mr. Bland is known to earn some money on the side helping his neighbours with various small jobs.

17Mr. Bland’s major mental illness is treated and in full remission. There has been no evidence of any substance misuse though there is an inexplicable urine drug screen dated December 27, 2024, which detected the presence of codeine, which Mr. Bland vehemently denies having knowingly taken. According to Dr. Swayze, this unexplained result did not change the treatment team discussion with respect to Mr. Bland’s annual review and the recommendation of the hospital for an absolute discharge.

18According to Dr. Swayze, who has been involved in Mr. Bland’s care for at least a couple of years, Mr. Bland has maintained an excellent trajectory.

19Dr. Swayze referenced the Hospital Report which contains Mr. Bland’s very elevated score on the PCL-R which would be generally indicative of the presence of antisocial traits. According to Dr. Swayze, Mr. Bland has never manifested any degree of antisociality since he has been involved in his care. The fact that he has had this score for a very long time could either be explained by Mr. Bland having been unwell at the time that the assessment was administered, or it could possibly be the result of an insufficient chart review. In his review of Mr. Bland's case, Dr. Swayze simply ignores that test result as there has been no manifestation or any indication whatsoever of antisociality to the extent that he determined that it is not worth re-testing Mr. Bland.

20Mr. Bland is in the midst of an active transition to a non-forensic psychiatric outpatient clinic at the Michael Garron Hospital. The application was made last spring, and it took several months for Mr. Bland to be assigned to a psychiatrist. He now receives his long-acting injection at that hospital’s clinic. Dr. Swayze has exchanged information with the community psychiatrist, who has confirmed from his own observations, that Mr. Bland is doing well.

21The only area of possible concern raised in the Hospital Report and in Dr. Swayze's testimony is the fact that Mr. Bland has a fairly unstructured daily routine. He is not currently engaged in any community activities.

22In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Ponesse, Dr. Swayze states that the main change between this reporting period and the last has been the improvement in insight and commitment to treatment on the part of Mr. Bland. According to Dr. Swayze, he is “fully in the game”. Mr. Bland is currently seeing two psychiatrists. He has stated to Dr. Swayze that he plans to continue the same course and to continue receiving treatment in the community once he receives an absolute discharge. According to Dr. Swayze it is almost a full-time job for Mr. Bland to look after his mental health and he has demonstrated the ability and willingness to do so.

23In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. Bland, Ms. Shafran, Dr. Swayze responded as follows:

1. He confirmed that the historical information in the Hospital Report which suggests that Mr. Bland has no contact with his father is in fact dated and should properly reflect that Mr. Bland does now have regular contact with his father. According to Dr. Swayze, they will go out to eat together from time-to-time and his father does drop in to see him at his home.
2. Dr. Swayze confirmed that the positive codeine test did not raise any particular alarms for the treatment team. This has not historically been one of Mr. Bland's substances of choice. The fact that it was codeine and no other opiates, in addition to the fact that his CMHA worker saw him on that day and reported no change in mental state, there is simply nothing to suggest that Mr. Bland knowingly ingested codeine. Dr. Swayze acknowledged that it could possibly be related to something he ingested such as poppy seeds and that he did question Mr. Bland about that at the time. Dr. Swayze further confirmed that there have been no issues with substances for several years, however, he did mention that two or three years ago Mr. Bland's urine drug screens had very low creatine levels which raised suspicions that the urine may have been watered down.
3. Finally, Dr. Swayze confirmed once again that there have been no complaints about Mr. Bland with respect to his current accommodation and added that because this is City of Toronto housing, the treatment team would likely have been contacted if there had been any incidents involving Mr. Bland.

24In response to questions posed by members of the Panel, Dr. Swayze confirmed that Mr. Bland’s PCLR and VRAG score results are inconsistent with his own clinical observations. Dr. Swayze believes that the tests were administered at the beginning of Mr. Bland's tenure under the Review Board.

25Regarding Mr. Bland's tendency to socially isolate and be minimally engaged in the community, Dr. Swayze acknowledged that structured activities do mitigate risk, though it is Mr. Bland’s choice to not be more engaged. Dr. Swayze also acknowledged that in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, at paragraph 46, there were concerns raised about Mr. Bland's willingness to engage in community psychiatric care but that this has not a concern in the past year.

26Finally, Dr. Swayze acknowledged that Mr. Bland’s last Disposition contains a consent to treatment provision. Dr. Swayze could not explain why that was felt to be necessary last year; however, in the opinion of Dr. Swayze, Mr. Bland is sufficiently internally motivated to take treatment.

27The hospital’s risk assessment summary is found on the last page of the Hospital Report under the heading “Proposed Amendments to Order, as follow:

“Over the last year, Mr. Bland has once again done well. He has successfully and uneventfully remained in the community since discharge from hospital on October 29, 2020. He has been compliant with his two antipsychotic medications. He has not engaged in any problematic behaviours nor exhibited antisocial attitudes. His mental state has remained stable. The clinical team recognizes that Mr. Bland has remained successfully in the community and commends him for this. Over the past year he has continued to comply with the expectations of the clinical team. While Mr. Bland’s daytime structure and routine remains suboptimal and his support system remains primarily his immediate family and health care providers, he has increased his social connections (peers) and engaged in greater recreational activities.

Mr. Bland has maintained contact with a community agency and has indicated a commitment to continuing follow up with them in the event of an absolute discharge. Over the course of the past year, Mr. Bland was referred to, accepted by, and now attends regularly at a non-forensic outpatient psychiatry team at Michael Garron Hospital. Mr. Bland is effectively engaged with that clinical team and indicates his wish to continue with treatment in the event of an Absolute Discharge.

Taken in totality, the team and hospital are of the opinion that Mr. Bland no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and should be entitled to an Absolute Discharge.”

28No other evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

29The Board was presented with a joint submission of all parties that Mr. Bland no longer meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public and should therefore be granted an absolute discharge.

Analysis and Conclusion

30Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board agrees that Mr. Bland no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as further set out in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

1. Despite a long history of major mental illness, substance use disorder and criminality, including assaultive behaviour, Mr. Bland has been maintaining stability in the community for several years. He is compliant with treatment including receiving a long-acting injectable and managing his oral antipsychotic medication independently. He has been fully symptom-free for some time. Mr. Bland has been accepting of the care offered to him under the forensic psychiatric system and appears to understand the need to continue receiving that care in the community.
2. Mr. Bland is actively transitioning to mental health supports in the community and has demonstrated increased insight and engagement over the course of the past year. Mr. Bland has apparently already met with his community psychiatrist, Dr. MacIntosh from MGH, who has reported positively to Dr. Swayze at CAMH.
3. Dr. Swayze refers to Mr. Bland as an ideal patient and that his trajectory before the Board has been very positive.
4. According to Dr. Swayze, there has been no evidence of antisociality. Mr. Bland has demonstrated empathy and gets along with his neighbours. His high PCL-R score could be indicative of how unwell he was at the start of his tenure under the Board. Though it would have been helpful for him to be re-tested, Dr. Swayze's clinical observations that Mr. Bland has not demonstrated any indication of antisociality are convincing.
5. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidentiary record before us, we grant Mr. Bland an absolute discharge and wish him well.